I had a very interesting evening at the SHDC Planning Committee meeting regarding sections one and five of the Spalding Western Relief Road.
From the discussions on section one, some councillors raised concerns over the proximity of the road to the main drain, as in other parts of this area road stability was an on-going problem where they were adjacent to watercourses.
I am not sure if the council officers really took this on board stating that it will be built to the highest standards. Time will tell.
The second debate was about the long term maintenance in perpetuity by the developers.
The general consensus being that the developers were not perceived as being trustworthy enough for this task and that it should be part of the Lincolnshire County Council responsibility.
These are the developers who are going to be asked for major funding the road in the long term?
Another interesting point was the height to the underside of the rail bridge is stated at 6.5 metres but upon enquiry this was from the top of the rails, not the local soil level.
The rail line is on an embankment so the bridge will be about two metres higher than the plan tends to show.
The proposal was accepted by the committee.
On the second proposal, section five of the relief road, Coun James Avery called into question many aspects of the road from funding to design, but one of the most fascinating parts of this is when he challenged the officials to explain how the new roundabout of Enterprise Way was going to improve traffic flow as stated in the proposal, especially when up to 1,000 additional houses are to be north of the new road.
The answer was a you to hear. What it really meant was that roundabouts help traffic flow in general because of their design, but in this context, with additional housing, this is not the case.
This is council speak at its best, but I have to remember that the approval relates to the road only and not the subsequent house that are to be built as this is something else completely different.
After James Avery, Coun Sally Slade outlined her objections to the proposal and her final question to the council officials was ‘How are going to minimise or prevent an increase in traffic going north through Pinchbeck and Surfleet?’
Looking across at the officers to whom this question was posed was interesting in that they all looked at each other to answer the question but no answer was given.
After this, other members of the committee asked questions, but after deciding again that the developers were not trustworthy enough to maintain the landscaped areas, the proposal was put to a vote.
Coun Avery, who, it appears, had wanted to raise concerns about section five, which may have been outside the remit of the proposal but thereby properly representing his constituents.
As a consequence of this they were ineligible to cast their votes. The result of the vote was unanimously for the proposal. (Ed – one councillor abstained).
I was glad to see Sir John Hayes at the meeting and would suggest to him that he should advise the Speaker of the House Of Commons to adopt a similar system to MPs who wish to oppose the government’s proposal for Brexit and prevent those against it from voting.
We now have the backing for two cul-de-sacs with the potential for a complete road in 20 years’ time and another probable 5,000 homes.
When and if it is ever completed, which I doubt in my lifetime, may suggest two names for this road South Lincs Folly or John Adams Way the Second.
Richard Evenden
Penway Drive, Pinchbeck
