NKDC Planning Application (22/0545/FUL) - Find a freedom of information request

A recent NKDC Planning Application (22/0545/FUL) has been submitted and within is a 'Statement of Community Involvement' (SCI) document that refers to the following extract :

3. Feedback 6. Improvements to Torgate Lane needed/concerns about Torgate Lane Following the consultation event, members of the development team met with County Highways on site to discuss Torgate Lane.

At that meeting highways officers confirmed that the access proposals included in the application proposals were suitable and that no additional works for Torgate Lane would be required as a result of the planning application. On this basis, no works to Torgate Lane are proposed as part of this planning application.

1.Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I respectfully request a public right of access to the referenced meeting held between the developer and County Highways.

2.In particular, within the meeting notes the Highways Officer concluded that no additional works were required for Torgate Lane as a result of the planning application.

Within these notes I would expect to see a reference(s) that refers to the National guidance provided to support such a statement, to include the cumulative impact of increased traffic levels over a 15 year period (noting a new Doctors Surgery, 25 New builds and additional business premises)

I can confirm that the information requested is held by Lincolnshire County Council. I have detailed below the information that is being released to you.

No meeting notes were taken by Lincolnshire County Council in respect of the two meetings referred to in the request. I can however advise that : The proposals are served by Torgate Road.

The traffic impact of the development is estimated at 12 vehicles per hour, this level of traffic does not require improvements to the highway which meet the CIL tests (NPPF Paragraph 57) of being necessary, fair and reasonable and directly related.

Paragraph 57 of NPPF requires that any planning obligations meet ALL the following tests:

a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

b) directly related to the development; and

c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

There is no precise definition of "severe" with regards to NPPF Paragraph 111, which advises 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.

" Planning Inspector's decisions regarding severity are specific to the locations of each proposal, but have common considerations: * The highway network is over-capacity, usually for period extending beyond the peak hours

* The level of provision of alternative transport modes

* Whether the level of queuing on the network causes safety issues.

In view of these criteria, the Highways and Lead Local Flood Authority does not consider that this proposal would result in a severe impact with regard to NPPF.