2 responses from Mr & Mrs Edward Craker (Individual)
1. Mr & Mrs Edward Craker (Individual) : 23 Apr 2012 15:01:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - M683sM-mod STORTH LAND S OF QUARRY LANE, STORTH
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
S.L.D.C. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK.
OBJECTION TO LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DOCUMENT (DPD) BASED ON THE WAY M683s Mod and EN40-Mod.
HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.
1. SLDC have used an incremental or piecemeal approach to compare candidate
sites.
For example, for the sites which I am interested in, they have not considered the cost
of highway infrastructure, which will be considerable and probably not sustainable.
They have rejected other sites where highway infrastructure costs would likely be
minimal. (R111 and R 115 would appear to be such sites.)
Thus sites have not been compared on an equal basis, certainly not as far as highway
infrastructure costs are concerned ..
In email correspondence to me, SLDC have themselves said that ideally financial
feasibility for sites M683sMod and EN40-Mod should have been carried out well
before now (late February 2012). They go on to say that could be said about many
sites for one issue or another. They also say that if it (M683sMod and EN40-Mod) is
unfeasible then it should not really be in.
Thus, it is clear by SLDC's own admission that sites have not been compared on an
equal basis.
2. I commented in response to the emerging options consultation in some detail
about the problem of highway infrastructure in relation to M683sM (the
previous reference for the sites now in question).
Please see Attachment C.
In recent correspondence with SLDC I was told that my comments had not
been passed to Cumbria County Council as Highway Authority. It seems that
it was only done when I specifically requested it (late February 2012). This
fundamentally important consultation between SLDC and CCC could have
happened several months earlier.
Thus, SLDC have not carried out consultations with other bodies, namely CCC as
Highway Authority, in a timely manner. At the very least, this has frustrated a proper
consideration of key factors.
Conclusion.
I therefore object to the DPD on the grounds that key factors for sites have been
considered on an incremental and incomplete basis.
This has not allowed a proper consideration of individual sites, nor a fair comparison
between sites.
The comparison of sites, at least in Storth/Sandside and any others where significant
information has not been available, should therefore be repeated with all the
information to hand so that a proper comparison can be made.
Attachment C - objection to M683sM (March 2011)
I object to the proposed allocation on the following grounds :-
• The area is within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. It should therefore not
be considered for development.
• The only feasible access to the site is from Quarry Lane.
Quarry Lane is not a highway maintainable at the public expense (although for
at least part of its length, it is a public footpath).
A development of 62 houses would need significant highway infrastructure in
itself. It would in fact be a MINOR ACCESS ROAD as defined in Cumbria
Design Guide. However, it could not become an adopted highway as it would only
connect to Quarry Lane which as stated above is not maintainable at the public
expense.
I question the advisability of having 62 dwellings on a private road with minimal
if any chance of adoption.
• Quarry Lane is the only feasible access to the site, and it is not possible for the
geometric standards required by the highway authority, Cumbria County Council,
to be met. These standards are set out in Cumbria Design Guide, First Edition,
December 1996, and I have confirmed with CCC that this is the case and that the
document is still in force.
There are at least three significant deficiencies as follows:-
I. Width of Quarry Lane.
As Quarry Lane is unadopted, CCC have not given it a classification.
However if it were to serve 62 housing units, it would be acting as a MINOR
ACCESS ROAD (which is defined as a road to serve up to 100 dwellings),
and in any case it already serves some commercial development. It is therefore
reasonable to consider it as a MINOR ACCESS ROAD at the least.
A MINOR ACCESS ROAD is required to have a carriageway width of 5.5m
+ two footways of 1.8m. a total width of 9 .I m. Even if only one footway was
acceptable, a total width of 7.3m would be required.
Quarry Lane at the southern end, along the frontage to EN27 and to its
junction with Storth Road is mostly only 5.4m wide "wall to wall" and only
5 .8m wide at its maximum. There are similar deficiencies at the Northern end .
Acquisition of adjoining land to enable widening, even if economically viable,
would be unlikely to be achievable.
In addition, it is questionable whether the requirements for forward visibility
can be met.
Quarry lane is therefore totally inadequate as an access to the site.
2. Junction of Quarry Lane with Storth Road.
Storth Road is classified by CCC as a MAJOR ACCESS ROAD. (A road that
serves about I 00-300 dwellings)
Taking Quarry Lane as a MINOR ACCESS ROAD with more than 30
dwellings, the visibility requirements for its junction with Storth Road are
4.5m x45m.
The current visibility is woefully less than this, and in addition, there are no
footways. This situation could not be brought up to the required standard
without land acquisition, which is unlikely to be achievable, and very
extensive civil engineering works, possibly involving partial rebuilding of an
existing brick arch bridge.
3. Lack of drainage and proper structure to the road.
There is no positive drainage, and no proper structure to the road. Its lack of
width and absence of kerbs results in vehicles "poaching" the verges resulting
in puddling, frost damage and breakdown of the structure of the road
particularly at the edges. Any increase in development and therefore use
would only exacerbate the situation.
As a final general comment regarding geometric highway standards, it is
worth noting that a recent application for one dwelling at Chapel Close, Storth,
SL/2010/0149, was recently refused by SLDC, went to appeal and was
dismissed by the Inspector, partially on highway grounds. Chapel Close is of
similar width to Quarry Lane, and although it has limited forward visibility
because of horizontal alignment deficiencies, vehicle speeds are, and can only
be, much lower than in Quarry Lane. I would argue that one additional
dwelling in Chapel Close represents much less of a potential highway danger
than 62 dwellings accessed off Quarry Lane.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
I have had correspondence for some months with SLDC regarding highway access to
the site. Further comments from Cumbria County Council were promised, but they
only came to me the day before the public consultation closed.
The following attachments are relevant-
Attachment C. This is my objection to the LDF made in March 20 II where I
pointed out the impracticality of highway access to the site(s) from
Storth Road.
Attachment D. Highway comments from CCC dated March 2012.
CCC say that the preferred options for access would be via the private road
(presumably they mean from the NE end of Quarry Lane) or through the Travis
Perkins site.
However their wording suggests that access through the TP site would only be
possible ifTP vacated the site.
Is this a realistic possibility?
CCC state they would not adopt Quarry Lane whilst quarry vehicles are still using it.
For how much longer will quarry vehicles be using Quarry Lane?
Would they concede to the suggested development being accessed by a private road
or must it be made up to adoptable standards?
It would have been useful to have been able to have asked these questions of CCC
during the consultation period.
CCC say that an access from "Storth Road would be acceptable in principle if an
acceptable visibility splay could be produced due to the railway bridge. The existing
access appears to have visibility issues caused by the railway bridge - these would
have to be addressed if this access were to be used to serve the site"
I believe it would not be possible to bring the Quarry Lane/Storth Road junction up to
an acceptable geometric standard (to meet the requirements of the Cumbria Design
Guide) at a cost which could be carried by the suggested development.
In addition, Quarry Lane itself would need widening which would further add to the
costs. Also private land would need to be acquired, which may not be possible.
Please see Attachment C.
Also a site visit by the Inspector would be valuable and clearly show the difficulties
of improving this junction to the required standard.
It would be wrong to include these sites if access is unfeasible.
SLDC agree this point. In an email to me in February 2012 they said that an
assessment would have to be undertaken to assess financial feasibility which ideally
should have been done well before now, the sooner it is done the better, and if it is
unfeasible it should not really be in.
Conclusion
To include sites which will ultimately not be capable of development does not serve
the planning process well.
I therefore object to the inclusion of sites M683s Mod and EN40-Mod, for
development for residential or commercial uses, unless it can be shown that access
from the NE end of Quarry Lane, or through the Travis Perkins site is a practicable
Attachment C - objection to M683sM (March 2011)
I object to the proposed allocation on the following grounds :-
• The area is within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. It should therefore not
be considered for development.
• The only feasible access to the site is from Quarry Lane.
Quarry Lane is not a highway maintainable at the public expense (although for
at least part of its length, it is a public footpath).
A development of 62 houses would need significant highway infrastructure in
itself. It would in fact be a MINOR ACCESS ROAD as defined in Cumbria
Design Guide. However, it could not become an adopted highway as it would only
connect to Quarry Lane which as stated above is not maintainable at the public
expense.
I question the advisability of having 62 dwellings on a private road with minimal
if any chance of adoption.
• Quarry Lane is the only feasible access to the site, and it is not possible for the
geometric standards required by the highway authority, Cumbria County Council,
to be met. These standards are set out in Cumbria Design Guide, First Edition,
December 1996, and I have confirmed with CCC that this is the case and that the
document is still in force.
There are at least three significant deficiencies as follows:-
I. Width of Quarry Lane.
As Quarry Lane is unadopted, CCC have not given it a classification.
However if it were to serve 62 housing units, it would be acting as a MINOR
ACCESS ROAD (which is defined as a road to serve up to 100 dwellings),
and in any case it already serves some commercial development. It is therefore
reasonable to consider it as a MINOR ACCESS ROAD at the least.
A MINOR ACCESS ROAD is required to have a carriageway width of 5.5m
+ two footways of 1.8m. a total width of 9 .I m. Even if only one footway was
acceptable, a total width of 7.3m would be required.
Quarry Lane at the southern end, along the frontage to EN27 and to its
junction with Storth Road is mostly only 5.4m wide "wall to wall" and only
5 .8m wide at its maximum. There are similar deficiencies at the Northern end .
Acquisition of adjoining land to enable widening, even if economically viable,
would be unlikely to be achievable.
In addition, it is questionable whether the requirements for forward visibility
can be met.
Quarry lane is therefore totally inadequate as an access to the site.
2. Junction of Quarry Lane with Storth Road.
Storth Road is classified by CCC as a MAJOR ACCESS ROAD. (A road that
serves about I 00-300 dwellings)
Taking Quarry Lane as a MINOR ACCESS ROAD with more than 30
dwellings, the visibility requirements for its junction with Storth Road are
4.5m x45m.
The current visibility is woefully less than this, and in addition, there are no
footways. This situation could not be brought up to the required standard
without land acquisition, which is unlikely to be achievable, and very
extensive civil engineering works, possibly involving partial rebuilding of an
existing brick arch bridge.
3. Lack of drainage and proper structure to the road.
There is no positive drainage, and no proper structure to the road. Its lack of
width and absence of kerbs results in vehicles "poaching" the verges resulting
in puddling, frost damage and breakdown of the structure of the road
particularly at the edges. Any increase in development and therefore use
would only exacerbate the situation.
As a final general comment regarding geometric highway standards, it is
worth noting that a recent application for one dwelling at Chapel Close, Storth,
SL/2010/0149, was recently refused by SLDC, went to appeal and was
dismissed by the Inspector, partially on highway grounds. Chapel Close is of
similar width to Quarry Lane, and although it has limited forward visibility
because of horizontal alignment deficiencies, vehicle speeds are, and can only
be, much lower than in Quarry Lane. I would argue that one additional
dwelling in Chapel Close represents much less of a potential highway danger
than 62 dwellings accessed off Quarry Lane.
Attachment D
M683sM - Storth
There are three potential accesses to this site- via Quarry Lane (a private road),
via Storth Road and via the existing Travis Perkins site should Travis Perkins vacate
the site in the future. Access via the private road and the Travis Perkins site would
be acceptable in principle and would be the preferred options. However, CCC
would not adopt the private lane whilst quarry vehicles are still using it. The use of
Storth Road would be acceptable in principle if an acceptable visibility splay could
be produced due to the railway bridge. The existing access appears to have
visibility issues caused by the railway bridge- these would have to be addressed if
this access were to be used to serve the site. Until these issues are addressed, it
could only be used as a pedestrian access to the site. There is potential for
pedestrian and cycle access to the site via the existing disused railway path which
runs alongside Quarry Lane.
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination
3.2 If you wish to participate in the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
I feel i will be able to go into more depth and satisfy myself that i have made my points clearly understood
2. Mr & Mrs Edward Craker (Individual) : 23 Apr 2012 15:08:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.8 Local Employment Allocations - EN40-mod SANDSIDE LAND SOUTH OF QUARRY LANE
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
Sustainability Appraisal has not been carried out and its baseline information and conclusions have not been used to inform the DPD
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
S.L.D.C. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK.
OBJECTION TO LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DOCUMENT (DPD) BASED ON THE WAY M683s Mod and EN40-Mod.
HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.
1. SLDC have used an incremental or piecemeal approach to compare candidate
sites.
For example, for the sites which I am interested in, they have not considered the cost
of highway infrastructure, which will be considerable and probably not sustainable.
They have rejected other sites where highway infrastructure costs would likely be
minimal. (R111 and R 115 would appear to be such sites.)
Thus sites have not been compared on an equal basis, certainly not as far as highway
infrastructure costs are concerned ..
In email correspondence to me, SLDC have themselves said that ideally financial
feasibility for sites M683sMod and EN40-Mod should have been carried out well
before now (late February 2012). They go on to say that could be said about many
sites for one issue or another. They also say that if it (M683sMod and EN40-Mod) is
unfeasible then it should not really be in.
Thus, it is clear by SLDC's own admission that sites have not been compared on an
equal basis.
2. I commented in response to the emerging options consultation in some detail
about the problem of highway infrastructure in relation to M683sM (the
previous reference for the sites now in question).
Please see Attachment C.
In recent correspondence with SLDC I was told that my comments had not
been passed to Cumbria County Council as Highway Authority. It seems that
it was only done when I specifically requested it (late February 2012). This
fundamentally important consultation between SLDC and CCC could have
happened several months earlier.
Thus, SLDC have not carried out consultations with other bodies, namely CCC as
Highway Authority, in a timely manner. At the very least, this has frustrated a proper
consideration of key factors.
Conclusion.
I therefore object to the DPD on the grounds that key factors for sites have been
considered on an incremental and incomplete basis.
This has not allowed a proper consideration of individual sites, nor a fair comparison
between sites.
The comparison of sites, at least in Storth/Sandside and any others where significant
information has not been available, should therefore be repeated with all the
information to hand so that a proper comparison can be made.
Attachment C - objection to M683sM (March 2011)
I object to the proposed allocation on the following grounds :-
• The area is within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. It should therefore not
be considered for development.
• The only feasible access to the site is from Quarry Lane.
Quarry Lane is not a highway maintainable at the public expense (although for
at least part of its length, it is a public footpath).
A development of 62 houses would need significant highway infrastructure in
itself. It would in fact be a MINOR ACCESS ROAD as defined in Cumbria
Design Guide. However, it could not become an adopted highway as it would only
connect to Quarry Lane which as stated above is not maintainable at the public
expense.
I question the advisability of having 62 dwellings on a private road with minimal
if any chance of adoption.
• Quarry Lane is the only feasible access to the site, and it is not possible for the
geometric standards required by the highway authority, Cumbria County Council,
to be met. These standards are set out in Cumbria Design Guide, First Edition,
December 1996, and I have confirmed with CCC that this is the case and that the
document is still in force.
There are at least three significant deficiencies as follows:-
I. Width of Quarry Lane.
As Quarry Lane is unadopted, CCC have not given it a classification.
However if it were to serve 62 housing units, it would be acting as a MINOR
ACCESS ROAD (which is defined as a road to serve up to 100 dwellings),
and in any case it already serves some commercial development. It is therefore
reasonable to consider it as a MINOR ACCESS ROAD at the least.
A MINOR ACCESS ROAD is required to have a carriageway width of 5.5m
+ two footways of 1.8m. a total width of 9 .I m. Even if only one footway was
acceptable, a total width of 7.3m would be required.
Quarry Lane at the southern end, along the frontage to EN27 and to its
junction with Storth Road is mostly only 5.4m wide "wall to wall" and only
5 .8m wide at its maximum. There are similar deficiencies at the Northern end .
Acquisition of adjoining land to enable widening, even if economically viable,
would be unlikely to be achievable.
In addition, it is questionable whether the requirements for forward visibility
can be met.
Quarry lane is therefore totally inadequate as an access to the site.
2. Junction of Quarry Lane with Storth Road.
Storth Road is classified by CCC as a MAJOR ACCESS ROAD. (A road that
serves about I 00-300 dwellings)
Taking Quarry Lane as a MINOR ACCESS ROAD with more than 30
dwellings, the visibility requirements for its junction with Storth Road are
4.5m x45m.
The current visibility is woefully less than this, and in addition, there are no
footways. This situation could not be brought up to the required standard
without land acquisition, which is unlikely to be achievable, and very
extensive civil engineering works, possibly involving partial rebuilding of an
existing brick arch bridge.
3. Lack of drainage and proper structure to the road.
There is no positive drainage, and no proper structure to the road. Its lack of
width and absence of kerbs results in vehicles "poaching" the verges resulting
in puddling, frost damage and breakdown of the structure of the road
particularly at the edges. Any increase in development and therefore use
would only exacerbate the situation.
As a final general comment regarding geometric highway standards, it is
worth noting that a recent application for one dwelling at Chapel Close, Storth,
SL/2010/0149, was recently refused by SLDC, went to appeal and was
dismissed by the Inspector, partially on highway grounds. Chapel Close is of
similar width to Quarry Lane, and although it has limited forward visibility
because of horizontal alignment deficiencies, vehicle speeds are, and can only
be, much lower than in Quarry Lane. I would argue that one additional
dwelling in Chapel Close represents much less of a potential highway danger
than 62 dwellings accessed off Quarry Lane.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The DPD is not effective in that the document is not deliverable, flexible or capable of being monitored.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
I have had correspondence for some months with SLDC regarding highway access to
the site. Further comments from Cumbria County Council were promised, but they
only came to me the day before the public consultation closed.
The following attachments are relevant-
Attachment C. This is my objection to the LDF made in March 20 II where I
pointed out the impracticality of highway access to the site(s) from
Storth Road.
Attachment D. Highway comments from CCC dated March 2012.
CCC say that the preferred options for access would be via the private road
(presumably they mean from the NE end of Quarry Lane) or through the Travis
Perkins site.
However their wording suggests that access through the TP site would only be
possible ifTP vacated the site.
Is this a realistic possibility?
CCC state they would not adopt Quarry Lane whilst quarry vehicles are still using it.
For how much longer will quarry vehicles be using Quarry Lane?
Would they concede to the suggested development being accessed by a private road
or must it be made up to adoptable standards?
It would have been useful to have been able to have asked these questions of CCC
during the consultation period.
CCC say that an access from "Storth Road would be acceptable in principle if an
acceptable visibility splay could be produced due to the railway bridge. The existing
access appears to have visibility issues caused by the railway bridge - these would
have to be addressed if this access were to be used to serve the site"
I believe it would not be possible to bring the Quarry Lane/Storth Road junction up to
an acceptable geometric standard (to meet the requirements of the Cumbria Design
Guide) at a cost which could be carried by the suggested development.
In addition, Quarry Lane itself would need widening which would further add to the
costs. Also private land would need to be acquired, which may not be possible.
Please see Attachment C.
Also a site visit by the Inspector would be valuable and clearly show the difficulties
of improving this junction to the required standard.
It would be wrong to include these sites if access is unfeasible.
SLDC agree this point. In an email to me in February 2012 they said that an
assessment would have to be undertaken to assess financial feasibility which ideally
should have been done well before now, the sooner it is done the better, and if it is
unfeasible it should not really be in.
Conclusion
To include sites which will ultimately not be capable of development does not serve
the planning process well.
I therefore object to the inclusion of sites M683s Mod and EN40-Mod, for
development for residential or commercial uses, unless it can be shown that access
from the NE end of Quarry Lane, or through the Travis Perkins site is a practicable
Attachment C - objection to M683sM (March 2011)
I object to the proposed allocation on the following grounds :-
• The area is within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB. It should therefore not
be considered for development.
• The only feasible access to the site is from Quarry Lane.
Quarry Lane is not a highway maintainable at the public expense (although for
at least part of its length, it is a public footpath).
A development of 62 houses would need significant highway infrastructure in
itself. It would in fact be a MINOR ACCESS ROAD as defined in Cumbria
Design Guide. However, it could not become an adopted highway as it would only
connect to Quarry Lane which as stated above is not maintainable at the public
expense.
I question the advisability of having 62 dwellings on a private road with minimal
if any chance of adoption.
• Quarry Lane is the only feasible access to the site, and it is not possible for the
geometric standards required by the highway authority, Cumbria County Council,
to be met. These standards are set out in Cumbria Design Guide, First Edition,
December 1996, and I have confirmed with CCC that this is the case and that the
document is still in force.
There are at least three significant deficiencies as follows:-
I. Width of Quarry Lane.
As Quarry Lane is unadopted, CCC have not given it a classification.
However if it were to serve 62 housing units, it would be acting as a MINOR
ACCESS ROAD (which is defined as a road to serve up to 100 dwellings),
and in any case it already serves some commercial development. It is therefore
reasonable to consider it as a MINOR ACCESS ROAD at the least.
A MINOR ACCESS ROAD is required to have a carriageway width of 5.5m
+ two footways of 1.8m. a total width of 9 .I m. Even if only one footway was
acceptable, a total width of 7.3m would be required.
Quarry Lane at the southern end, along the frontage to EN27 and to its
junction with Storth Road is mostly only 5.4m wide "wall to wall" and only
5 .8m wide at its maximum. There are similar deficiencies at the Northern end .
Acquisition of adjoining land to enable widening, even if economically viable,
would be unlikely to be achievable.
In addition, it is questionable whether the requirements for forward visibility
can be met.
Quarry lane is therefore totally inadequate as an access to the site.
2. Junction of Quarry Lane with Storth Road.
Storth Road is classified by CCC as a MAJOR ACCESS ROAD. (A road that
serves about I 00-300 dwellings)
Taking Quarry Lane as a MINOR ACCESS ROAD with more than 30
dwellings, the visibility requirements for its junction with Storth Road are
4.5m x45m.
The current visibility is woefully less than this, and in addition, there are no
footways. This situation could not be brought up to the required standard
without land acquisition, which is unlikely to be achievable, and very
extensive civil engineering works, possibly involving partial rebuilding of an
existing brick arch bridge.
3. Lack of drainage and proper structure to the road.
There is no positive drainage, and no proper structure to the road. Its lack of
width and absence of kerbs results in vehicles "poaching" the verges resulting
in puddling, frost damage and breakdown of the structure of the road
particularly at the edges. Any increase in development and therefore use
would only exacerbate the situation.
As a final general comment regarding geometric highway standards, it is
worth noting that a recent application for one dwelling at Chapel Close, Storth,
SL/2010/0149, was recently refused by SLDC, went to appeal and was
dismissed by the Inspector, partially on highway grounds. Chapel Close is of
similar width to Quarry Lane, and although it has limited forward visibility
because of horizontal alignment deficiencies, vehicle speeds are, and can only
be, much lower than in Quarry Lane. I would argue that one additional
dwelling in Chapel Close represents much less of a potential highway danger
than 62 dwellings accessed off Quarry Lane.
Attachment D
M683sM - Storth
There are three potential accesses to this site- via Quarry Lane (a private road),
via Storth Road and via the existing Travis Perkins site should Travis Perkins vacate
the site in the future. Access via the private road and the Travis Perkins site would
be acceptable in principle and would be the preferred options. However, CCC
would not adopt the private lane whilst quarry vehicles are still using it. The use of
Storth Road would be acceptable in principle if an acceptable visibility splay could
be produced due to the railway bridge. The existing access appears to have
visibility issues caused by the railway bridge- these would have to be addressed if
this access were to be used to serve the site. Until these issues are addressed, it
could only be used as a pedestrian access to the site. There is potential for
pedestrian and cycle access to the site via the existing disused railway path which
runs alongside Quarry Lane.
