Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 2331

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: National Highways

Policy RE1 sets out the Council’s policy on proposed development for the production of renewable energy. National Highways is supportive of such proposals in principle, however we would draw your attention to DfT policy with respect of proposals close the SRN.
As set out in DfT Circular 01/2022 paragraph 65-67, wind turbines should not be located where motorists need to pay particular attention to the driving task, such as the immediate vicinity of connections, sharp bends, and crossings for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders. To mitigate the risks to the safety of road users arising from structural or mechanical failure, wind turbines should be sited a minimum of height + 50 metres or height x 1.5 (whichever is the lesser) from the highway boundary of the SRN.
In addition, as per DfT Circular 01/2022 paragraph 70, some developments, notably solar farms, wind turbines and those with expansive glass facades, have the potential to create glint and glare which can be a distraction for drivers. Where these developments would be visible from the SRN, National Highways should be consulted on an appropriate assessment of the intensity of solar reflection likely to be produced. This should satisfy National Highways that safety on the SRN is not compromised.

Support

Representation ID: 2332

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: National Highways

Policy EN5 sets out requirements to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of flooding. Whilst there is no mention of allowing for discharging surface water to highway drains, we would like to highlight with respect of sites adjacent to the SRN that discharge of surface water to National Highway drainage would not be permitted (with reference to DfT Circular 01/2022 paragraph 59).

Support

Representation ID: 2333

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: National Highways

National Highways notes that the policy focuses on securing transport infrastructure through financial contributions. However, we would recommend the text be amended so the delivery mechanisms under the Highways Act 1980 through Section 278 Agreements are also included for the delivery of highway mitigation.
Section 106 contributions can be an effective way of securing developer investment towards necessary highways mitigation. However, securing the ‘forward funding’ of highways schemes in the timescales necessary to deliver growth cannot be guaranteed, and any shortfalls in funding could jeopardise the delivery of a scheme. As such, there is a risk to highway authorities in accepting a S106 contribution which allows the development to proceed without necessarily having the required mitigation in place.
A Section 278 agreement is an alternative method of securing highway improvements which puts the developer (or consortium of developers) in control of the highway scheme delivery, and subsequently more in control of when their development can come forward. For schemes on the SRN, National Highways would oversee the delivery of the highways scheme via the Section 278 process, but it would be fully designed, funded, and delivered by the developer.
Where contributions are the most suitable mechanism for securing highway infrastructure improvements, it may still be necessary to use Grampian conditions to restrict occupation of a development until the highway infrastructure has been delivered. This would be used to prevent an otherwise unacceptable safety impact or severe residual cumulative impact in terms of highway capacity, to ensure compliance with paragraph 115 of the NPPF.