AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

management

30th January 1970
Page 55
Page 56
Page 55, 30th January 1970 — management
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

matters by John Darker, Amaim

Depot planning the BRS Parcels saga (2)

LAST WEEK I outlined evidence given at an appeal by BRS Parcels Ltd. against a refusal of planning permission to build a new depot at Pembury, near Tonbridge, replacing a congested depot at Tunbridge Wells. Space limitations prevented reference to two points of substance in the BRS submission; the case for the planning authority and other interested persons will also be considered in the present article.

The Inspector's report showed that the Kent county surveyor required an unimpeded sight line of 200ft on the main road 20ft back along the acccess from the carriageway edge. (This point occupied some time at the inquiry; certain witnesses doubted whether professional lorry drivers would always stop at a point 7ft from the carriageway where visibility was satisfactory.) On one side of the access road the owner was willing to sell a strip of land to improve visibility. On the other, a houseowner on the site was withholding consent for the lowering of a wooden boundary fence. But BRS submitted that the requirements laid down in "Roads in Urban Areas" could be relaxed, where access was to a lightly trafficked road, as at Pembury.

The intensity of road use is measured in p.c.u. (passenger carrying units). Eighty lorry movements per day, equal to 130 p.c.u., was expected to rise to 230 p.c.u. per day in the foreseeable future, if BRS were granted planning permission. This approximated to the p.c.u. involved from a residential development of the site. This utilization by commercial vehicles-230 p.c.u. per day—was matched against traffic flow rates on B.2015 of 3,800 p.c.u. per day in 1965, the practical capacity of the road being 10,000 p.c.u. per day. It was submitted on behalf of BRS that a busy access to 8.2015 from the depot site would have been 200 p.c.u. per hour, not per day.

Turning now to the case for the planning authority, the report notes that the Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough Town Map was submitted in 1962 and Ministerial modifications were published in December 1966. In 1969 the plan had not been formally approved.

In 1966 BRS submitted an identical application to develop the Pembury site. It was refused -because it would have constituted an undesirable intensification of commercial development, contrary to provisions of the Town Map, and would be

likely to cause additional hazards to traffic. While moderate residential development was allowed in villages new industry or commercial businesses were not normally permitted. Though two applications for industrial uses had been permitted near the appeal site, in the first case there were existing use rights and in the second case the proposed use was similar to an existing use.

The existing light industrial business—on the proposed depot site—was small and quiet, with little affect on local amenities. The transport depot proposed "would create a noise and disturbance beyond all comparison with the present conditions, likely to damage the residential amenities of nearby dwellings-. Even if the present light industrial Use were intensified it would not compare in impact with the BRS proposals since the erection of further buildings would be subject to the general classification of a light industry in the Use Classes Order,

Argued Kent County Council; "Heavy vehicular traffic will cause noise and inconvenience to residents near the site, as well as being on a scale alien and detrimental to the residential character of Pembury. In the vicinity of the site, the road frontages are mainly residential, as is the character of the area, and the appellants propose to operate throughout the 24 hours. Their traffic will cause disturbance particularly at peak morning and evening periods. and if an increase from 80 to 140 vehicle movements per day in five years is expected, this will probably continue at the same rate, to judge by the increase . . in the past five years. Employees and their cars will also increase."

'Greater efforts'

After a reference to the undesirability of developing the appeal site before the comprehensive area plan had been finalized, Kent C.C. said "It is agreed the appellants need a new place for their depot, but not in a rural area, and they should find one, as any other concern justified in seeking a site locally would have to do, by looking for industrial sites at Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells or Paddock Wood. Knowing already that the council objected to their using the appeal site, they should have made greater efforts to find one, and possibly those investigated at Paddock Wood or East Peckham might have proved suitable". The council resisted growth of employment in the appeal site area and were indeed concerned that the growth of manufacturing in the south-west Kent area could be in excess of the present planned population growth by the 1970s. Hence the need to restrict commercial development strictly to sites specifically allocated on Town Maps.

The Pembury parish council supported the BRS appeal but Kent C.C. were concerned lest similar bids in the area succeeded; the county council wished badly sited industrial concerns "to be run down where possible". One wonders how many other local authorities harbour similar thoughts about badly sited transport depots?

Serious concern was expressed by the Kent C.C. witnesses on traffic grounds. Vehicles passing the proposed access road to 8.2015 had increased from an average of 3,160 in a 16-hour period in June 1965 to 4,744 in January 1969. There had been 10 road accidents within a half-mile length of B.2015 in the three years ending January 18 1968 -though none of these was connected in any way with the appeal site. The C.C. were opposed to any relaxation of the 'visibility splay' of 20011, 15ft back from the edge of the carriageway. The 1511 distance should not be relaxed to 711 only, where admittedly visibility extends for 70011, both because of the numbers and the type of vehicles that would be using the access."

Local residents, argued the county council, were much concerned about the danger to schoolchildren that could arise from use of the access to the proposed depot on dark mornings. Most of the village was to the south of the site and the County Primary School was a few hundred feet to the north. There was also a nearby kindergarten. "In this respect the Pembury parish council, anxious to avoid another concrete mixing use becoming established at the appeal site, are disregarding the additional danger that could arise to children from large vehicles using this access, as well as the private road to the south."

Alternative access roads to the appeal site might have been arranged but these depended on future development "details of which are still not settled and which cannot be known. They are not part of the original application before the Minister and are irrelevant to the decision in the present case. . . ." The appeal, therefore, should be dismissed.

On the attitude of the Pembury parish council who supported the appeal the Inspector said the council had advocated relocation of the cement industries south of the appeal site which caused a nuisance to nearby residents through dirt and noise and provided little employment. "It is surprising that some residents who petitioned the council three years ago complaining about these industries are opposing the present proposal".

"This," wrote the Inspector, "would be free from any dust or nuisance and comparatively quiet, as the council know from an inspection of the operations at the Tunbridge Wells Depot. There would be no undesirable intensification of commercial development, compared to the already existing activities of the cement mixing concern, permitted by the district council. Not being industrial, BRS Parcels Ltd. would not create a precedent for other industrial uses in the vicinity, and the existing light industrial use at the site could generate much more traffic than the proposed use".

Moreover, "the proposal would he a visual improvement over what exists at present by replacing the unsightly old buildings, and enhance the appearance of this ugly industrial area in the middle of the village".

A nearby resident feared traffic hazards when buses were parked adjacent to the access, and a local roofing contractor thought his business might be affected by lorry parking or congestion near his premises.

Mr. W. P. J. Watts, owner of "Queen's

Folly," a house adjacent to the proposed access road, strongly opposed the BRS project. Traffic was likely to run within 3I1 of the front door of his house, a building scheduled as of special architectural or historical interest. Three young children of Mr. Watts would be seriously endangered by heavy vehicles passing close by. One of the .children suffered seriously from • blindness.

The Inspector concluded, inter alma, that though new premises were necessary it was inappropriate for a haulage business on the scale envisaged to be established at the Pembury site. It would involve the continuous passage of heavy vehicles through the built-up part of the village, and could disturb occupants of nearby houses by vibration and noise. And he opposed any relaxation of access visibility standards as medium to large vehicles were involved.

A further special article will deal with official views on the planning of road transport depots.


comments powered by Disqus