| Objection of Alconbury Parish Council in respect of Applications:
1. Ref: 07/01699/FUL – Temporary Use of existing buildings for employment (B1, B2 and B8). 2. Ref: 07/01698/FUL – Temporary Use of hardstanding for external storage. 3. Ref: 07/01697/FUL – Temporary Use of the former runway for external storage. 1. Traffic impact 2. These new temporary applications combined propose a further: 171,000 sqm in total 3. When added to the existing areas this gives a total of 466,000sqm on the base as a whole. The proposed 60% increase in the area currently used for storage over and above the existing situation which already causes traffic problems is proposed without any mitigation or measures to seek to reduce or minimise this additional traffic impact. The 466,000 figure is also somewhat flexible as it is understood that no height restriction was placed on the existing temporary permission for storage. Therefore the developers are utilising the area to great advantage by stacking 4 – 5 containers high in places to increase the volume which is stored. The developers traffic assessment estimates a modest level of additional HGV and LGV traffic at peak times would result from the proposals now put forward. In the morning peak it suggests an additional 83 vehicle movement between 8.00 and 9.00am. Whilst this does not sound greatly significant when put in that way this translates to an additional vehicle every 45 seconds! 4. By way of comparison, the Council will be aware that on 10 December 2003, the Secretary of State granted planning permission (your reference 97/1500) for the redevelopment of the base to provide for 630,000sqm of warehousing / storage uses. This 630,000sqm is only 164,000sqm more than the existing temporary permission plus what is now being proposed by the developer. In effect if permitted, the developer would be in a position where he will have the ability to operate 74% of the space permitted under the Secretary of States decision without the mitigation required by that permission. 5. You will be aware that when the secretary of state granted permission a number of conditions were attached that were deemed vital to mitigate the impacts of the uses on Alconbury and the surrounding road network. Those most relevant as taken from the decision letter are: 15) No building hereby permitted shall be occupied unless and until the following works have been completed: 16) No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until a scheme for the improvement of the A141/C339 roundabout to facilitate bus priority and improve cyclist provision has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority……. 17) No part of the development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme of traffic calming works to the C339 through the Stukeleys prepared generally in accordance with The Stukeleys Traffic Calming (shown on Savill Bird & Axon drawings nos 1 – 4 dated 16 November 1998) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority…………. 22) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a raillink to the East Coast Mainline is provided in accordance with the Order made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and associated with these proposals or such other link as may otherwise be approved by the Local Planning Authority. 24) Operational rail sidings shall be provided to a minimum of 90% of the Class B8 floorspace in the development hereby permitted ……. 6. Given that the Inspector, as supported by the Secretary of State recognised that these measures were a vital requirement in allowing such large levels of B8 storage at the site, (and clearly traffic conditions have not improved since 2003), it is submitted that as the current applications propose no such measures then they can only reasonably be refused for failing to make adequate provision for the necessary road and rail improvements to mitigate the impacts of the traffic that will be generated. 2. Visual impact 8. However, the secretary of states decision as referred to above contained a condition relating to external storage stating: 48) No items shall be stored or stacked in a designated storage compound so as to exceed the height of the approved boundary treatment with the exception of the area marked “Rail freight handling” on the scheme Masterplan, where containers shall be stacked no more than 10 metres high. 9. The Secretary of State was therefore clearly of the view that any external storage except in small designated areas where 10 metres was permitted, should not exceed the height of the boundary fencing (approx 2 – 3 metres). It is submitted that the current applications should be refused due to the inappropriate visual impact that they would have on the local landscape. 3. Noise
|