Minutes from meeting on 16th June 2017

17/1000C Proposed planning application for 500 houses, a school and shops on Giantswood Lane and Manchester Road.

Delamere House , Crewe  @ 10.00 am

Present – Mr Neil Jones – Principal Planning Development Officer , Cheshire East , Mr Chris Hindle Highways Cheshire East , Mr Paul Griffiths Highways Cheshire East , Hulme Walfield & Somerford Booths Parish Councillors ( Cllr G Silman, Cllr M Wakerly and Mrs J Mason – Clerk)

Mr C Hindle had carried out the research agreed at the last meeting:

Modelling of future traffic on Giantswood Lane The traffic model for Congleton Link Road has been run (as a coarse guide only), to help understand the likely additional traffic that might use Giantswood Lane after completion of the link road and all planned housing developments. The table below indicates the increase in numbers of vehicles (in terms of Passenger Car Equivalent Units – PCU’s) that are predicted will use Giantswood Lane in each direction in the years 2020 and 2035 in the AM peak (8am to 9am)

It is important to note that the differences in traffic flow presented are not solely down to the impact of the Giantswood Lane developments but also include the impacts of all additional traffic generated traffic generated by all other planned developments as well as general background traffic growth.

High Growth VS Core Scenario (0800 model hour)
  2020 (PCU’s) 2035 (PCU’s)
Northbound +30 +66
Southbound +66 +140

The apparent limited increase in the numbers of vehicles using Giantswood Lane is a result of the new link road in changing traffic behaviour in the area. The limited increases also mean that there is little justification for consideration of any measures to control access to and from the developments onto Giantswood Lane. We will however be doing post-opening surveys to assess the impact of the new road and validate the modelling assumptions. Despite there being little justification in terms of apparent increases in vehicle flows attributable to the developments in question, we have looked a little further into some of the suggestions that were discussed at the meeting as follows:

  • Feasibility of underpass between development sites on either side of Giantswood Lane

A high level cost estimate of a proposal to connect the two proposed developments via an underpass between the two sites on either side of Giantswood Lane has been carried out. The estimate confirms that such an underpass would cost in the order of £2m (subject to surveys / ground investigation etc) . Given the predicted flows on Giantswood Lane (see above), a planning condition / obligation for each development to provide this underpass would not be reasonable as far as CE were concerned.

  • Enforcement of no turning left or right out into or out of the developments

When both developments are complete, the connection between the two sides of the lane is unlikely to be a crossroads, due to safety audit requirements. It is more likely to be a staggered or offset junction. This would mean that prevention of turning movements onto and from the Giantswood Lane would not be possible if a vehicular connection between the two developments is to be maintained.  Control via a Traffic Regulation Order (enforced by Police or cameras) would clearly not be practical in this scenario.

Congleton Link Road – Mr P Griffiths explained that the last public enquiries with Compulsory Purchase Orders had now been completed and CE was going out for tenders for the construction of the Congleton Link Road. They intended to be on site in 2018.

Mr Nigel Jones thought 17/1000C would be at the SPB in September but at this stage there was no access onto Giantswood Lane. There were two points that indicated an emergency access and a possible future connection when the other planning application was submitted. This application would stand alone in that there was no access on to Giantswood Lane.

Cllr G Silman still felt the under pass should not be dismissed and the parish council could assist with the funding as there would be the CIL on the future 500 houses. The results were discussed and Cllr M Wakerly disputed the figures in relation to increase in traffic as he felt the 1,000 houses would still travel through Gianstwood Lane to save time as opposed to the CLR. Both CH and PG disagreed.

It was agreed that 17/1000C should contribute to S106 monies to traffic calming on Gianstwood Lane; HW & SB argued it needed to include Mill Lane and Smithy Lane. The PC needed to keep accidents statistics on file as the police would not have the ones referred to by the PC.

The link between developments was a requirement but did not have to be for vehicles; it could be pedestrian / cycleway. It seemed evident ’Westlow Mere Fisheries’ were quite key in the access being achieved between the two sites as they were not willing to gain from selling the land for development.

As there had been no objection to the Master Plan, it was hard to object at this stage to the principal of accesses between sites. CE all agreed that traffic calming from the developer would be a consideration. Cllr GS argued an under pass would be an insignificant amount for both developers in a £300m development. .

The potential HW and SB should object to the application was discussed and ensure that the compulsory open space within the site was on the edge of Giantswood Lane for possible future connection and that at the currently proposed future access onto Giantswood Lane space so that all options including an under pass could be investigated. . There should be no vehicular access onto Giantswood Lane on this current application. The traffic calming S106 monies should be secured for the Parish.

 

Meeting closed at 11.30am