Planning Application 138024 - Red Lion Tavern, Marton Road, Sturton by Stow - Find a freedom of information request

Planning Application 138024 - Red Lion Tavern, Marton Road, Sturton by Stow.

1) Can you please confirm if I've understood correctly that any surveys, studies, assessment studies/risk assessments and associated reports as per the process, requirement and recommendations as defined within Section II - Crossings of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6 - Traffic Control 2019 are not able to be made available for Public Viewing?

2) Given your expertise in this area, please can you explain, with the relevant support evidence, how the latest puffin crossing design satisfies the requirements and recommendations of Section

15.5 visibility? Specifically, Table 15.1 and as defined in more detail within Section 2.15 and also Section 15.12 Proximity from Junctions?

I would like to request, as a matter of urgency, that you could please provide the following information:

1)   Please confirm the process and schedule that can enable the relevant documents to be made available to me.  Also, the contact details for the relevant person for such a specific request.

2)    That until the assessment documents, reports and studies in accordance with Section II - Crossings of the Traffic Signs Manual and Chapter 6 - Traffic Control 2019 are received, that the consultation period be duly extended.

3)    I would like to specifically request a list of information pursuant to Section II- Crossings of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6 - Traffic Control 2019. 

Included, but not limited to requested information as follows, with regards to the proposed crossing on the A1500

a)     A site survey

b)    A pedestrian survey

c)     A traffic survey, and

d)    Other relevant factors including crossing difficulty, crossing times and speeds, and road accident data

e)    Other reports, assessments and/or communications in relation to the consideration made in line with sections and associated subsections, including but not limited to:

(i)     13.1 General

(ii)    13.2 Site Survey

(iii)    13.3 Pedestrian Survey

(iv)    13.4 Traffic Survey

(v)     13.5 Crossing Difficulty

(vi)    13.7 Road Accidents

(vii)    14.1 General

(viii)   14.2 Crossing Options

(ix)    15.1 General

(x)     15.2 Accessibility

(xi)    15.3 Uncontrolled or Informal crossings1/3

(xii)    15.4 Location

(xiii)   15.5 Visibility

I would like to ask some questions regarding the Planning Application 138024 - Red Lion Tavern, Marton Road, Sturton by Stow.

4) This application included a Transport Statement No. 18 on the application 138024 dated June 2018.  This assessment, I assume, lead to the 'Proposed Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings' on the site plan.  The crossing for the A1500 positioned near the Plough, I've noticed was well away from the staggered junctions within this plan.  Why was this if proximity to junctions poses NO material risk?

5) I would also like to ask why considering the design changes accepted Application 139813 - Red Lion Tavern, Marton Road, Sturton by Stow, that the final design acceptance dated Oct 2018, Drawing No. J174-0013, did not include the proposed A1500 crossing?

As in 2019 Section II-Crossings of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6 - Traffic Control 2019 would have been in force.  This drawing and other information is not included in Application Number 138024, the initial first application which was open to public comments.
      
6) a) I questioned a Councillor regarding the two crossings that should have been built by the Co-op prior to its' opening? He replied that he would look into this after they weren't built and that 'residents expected to see this happen' he was 'asked to take this up'

b) I have also questioned again why the wording was changed to 'Pedestrian Crossing Points', if you could explain why please?

c) Could this be a West Lindsey District Council issue for enforcement as a Councillor says in his email response of 17th January 2024?

7) In relation to both these matters please could you provide information with the relevant references (if I can make my request specific) to enable me to see the relevant documents available in relation to the above decision

8) The crossings were never built, and only tactile paving was put in. According to an officers report dated 23rd Oct 2017 {signed 23rd Oct 2018}'the site entrance does not offer appropriate surfaces for an uncontrolled crossing'. Why was this?

Also the other officers report was removed and this one duplicated to read the same in both 46 + 47 on the application data base.

9) a) I would also like to ask why in such a short time that the public are now required to fund a now proposed Puffin Crossing on the A1500 especially if this scheme/project is part of the assessment criteria?  The developers of a commercial property (Co-op) were aiming at the time of application to fund their crossings. 

b)Taking this into account I am very interested to understand any material changes that have occurred in the last 4 years other than the Co-op development and in that time also any unrelated changes to this development.

10) a) I have been made aware by some customers/neighbouring properties that they have not been consulted again to be invited to resubmit their objections/comments.  Can you please explain this as you say in your email that this is the case? 

b) Given that the timescales to comment/object are significantly shorter, how is this fair and justified that some people are still unaware of the new plan superseded?

11) On a notice, Sturton by Stow Primary School are sending out to parents/carers, they state 'Any comments unconfirmed will be discounted'. You state in your email that 'we will take into account a pragmatic view and take into account previous comments'-  is this still correct please?

12) In your email you state that you 'want to work with the whole community and provide something beneficial for all'  The Co-op was built despite many objections for reasons stated on the detrimental effect if could have on the Village Store, despite this it went ahead. Use Class F2 states 'a store selling similar goods should not be built within 1 km. of an existing'?

13) There were also concerns for road safety and extra traffic.  Please explain how, if this proposed crossing is built, Sturton General Stores is supposed to facilitate parking for delivery vehicles?  I have no rear access to the Store or any other parking facilities apart from the A1500 in front of the Store.

14)a) It is for this reason I request the relevant information so that I can fully understood the need and the reasoning for a puffin crossing, the result of which will close down the longstanding Village Store. 

b) I also request this to obtain further knowledge prior to the possible instruction of legal representation regarding this matter.

15) I was informed by a Councillor that he would discuss with the Design Engineers if the zig-zag lines could be shortened but on the new plan they are the same.  If my business fails as a result of this proposed crossing, will I be compensated for this loss to my livelihood, my staff and the community it serves on a daily basis?  My store is 'owned' independently and not part of a chain of stores.  It has now been confirmed by email from a Councillor that this request is denied by the Design Engineers.

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.

1) It is correct that surveys, studies, risk assessements and associated reports are not made available for public viewing. These are not normally included within consultation documentation for Traffic Regulation Orders but do exist internally for design purposes. A Stage 1 safety audit was carried out for this location that suggested the crossing should be centralised between the junction of the B1241 and Tillbridge Road. This was to enhance visibility of the crossing for turning vehicles from each arm of the B1241. There are no suitable locations east or west of the proposed site that cater for the pedestrian desire line.

2) With an 85th %ile speed of 30mph, there has to be a clear 40m stopping sight distance for Tillbridge Road which is easily achieved due to the straight approaches to the crossing.

The crossing is located in such a way as to satisfy the recommendations of 15.12.3 in terms of allowing space between the priority markings and the crossing of at least one vehicle.

I would like to request, as a matter of urgency, that you could please provide the following information:

1) A request for information held by Lincolnshire County Council can be made under the Freedom of Information Act. For ease and to avoid further delay, we have treated your correspondence as a request for information under this act.

2) Requests for information do not affect the timescales of public consultation. The timeframe for responses to be provided to the public consultation is in line with legislation and so the period will not be extended.

3) A pedestrian crossing survey was carried out on 7th July 2022, attached with related documents. It covers all of the information held for the items listed at point 3.

4) As West Lindsey District Council is the Planning Authority for this area, I would respectfully suggest you contact them for answers to questions or requests for information about planning applications and processes

5 - 9) As Point 4.

10) b) All those who submitted comments and objections to the previous advertisement of the proposed crossing have been contacted again asking them if they wish to resubmit their correspondence in response to the revised advertisement. If no response or confirmation of this is subsequently received then these individual comments cannot be taken into account.

The reference to previous comments being taken into account will be the case as similar responses are expected following the current public consultation, but we do need these to be submitted within the timeframe provided on the notice. The timeframe for responses to be provided to the public consultation is in line with legislation.

11) Yes

12) Please contact the Planning Authority, West Lindsey District Council, they may be best placed to comment. https://west-lindsey-self.achieveservice.com/

13) There will be opportunity to park for deliveries within or adjacent to the layby on High St, and within the layby and beyond the zigzag markings on the A1500.

14) b) Noted, and hopefully my answers and the further information we have provided under FOI helps you with your next steps

15) A Councillor did discuss options to shorten the zig-zag markings with designers. Unfortunately they are there to form a “controlled area” within which no parking or overtaking is permitted.

The primary reason for this is to ensure visibility of the crossing area and waiting pedestrians to oncoming traffic. Shortening the markings would have allowed vehicles to park on the approach to the crossing and mask the presence of pedestrians on the northern side. We do try to consider all impacts on a balance of risk when introducing safety features, but do not compensate businesses for losses or the community for impact on access. This is difficult to quantify but has been considered in the holistic decisions around this proposal and the purpose of a consultation is to ensure we have considered all views and risks.