Highways objection letter (COU)

Home » Highways objection letter (COU)

Below is a detailed summary of the key concerns, supported by evidence from past Highways submissions:

I would also note we have the Chicken sheds application on the horizon and there are several other barns locally whose owners are reviewing the outcome of these applications before potentially submitting their own applications.

Key Points of Concern:

• Unsuitable Road Network
  • The site is served by three narrow single-track roads with no formal passing places.
  • These roads are already degraded due to increased traffic, seasonal wear, and lack of capacity to support heavy goods vehicles.
• Ongoing Verge and Infrastructure Damage
  • In Highways Authority submission SDNP/12/00513/FUL – HIGHWAYS_COMMENTS-72419.pdf, an inspection of the local road network revealed:
    • Numerous instances of vehicles overrunning verges, causing damage to roadside ditches.
    • Even in places where kerbing was installed to reinforce carriageway edges that is now damaged again.
    • Widespread on-road parking, further reducing the usable width and accessibility of these routes.
  • These observations directly confirm the unsuitability of the infrastructure for increased commercial use.
• Unrealistic and Contradictory Traffic Estimates
  • The applicant (SDNP-25-01596-PA3R) asserts only 15 vehicle movements per day, a figure that does not reflect the proposed use (which suggests vehicle storage, goods storage, and builder’s supplies).
  • Highways comments from SDNP/25/01499/PA3R – HIGHWAYS_COMMENTS-2161331.pdf directly contradict this, noting the 15 movements is not a reasonable or reliable analysis.
  • Meanwhile, the Highways Authority’s own previous support of this figure as a “reasonable estimate” is now clearly in conflict with their newer assessment, highlighting the inconsistency and unreliability of the traffic data provided.
  • TRICS data for similar facilities indicates upwards of 57 movements per day, and previous applications have consistently underreported actual post-approval vehicle activity.
• Environmental and Routing Impacts Acknowledged by Highways
  • In SDNP/21/05284/CND – HIGHWAYS-1715897.pdf, the Highways Authority itself notes that:
    • Traffic impact depends heavily on the specific storage use, which can vary significantly.
    • The type of storage selected by the applicant appears to be the least controversial, likely to underplay the true impact.
    • There may well be environmental impacts as a result of this development.
• Unenforceable Mitigation and Routing Plans
  • The proposal includes a routing plan using Pratt Lane and the A3, with a suggested vehicle restriction via covenant.
  • This is unenforceable, and there is no capacity within the County Council to monitor or ensure compliance.
  • Pratt Lane is also heavily parked on, especially overnight, restricting access width, and runs through the busiest part of the Steep Marsh hamlet.
  • The proposed use of 8m rigid HGVs—which typically begin at 7.5 tonnes—would breach existing limits and further strain the infrastructure.
• Underreported Road Safety Incidents
  • The assertion of no recorded injury collisions ignores frequent but unreported incidents:
    • Vehicles in ditches.
    • Collisions with barns, fences and residential property.
    • Low-speed damage and near misses, common on single-track roads without sightlines or safe passing opportunities.
• Cumulative Impact Overlooked
  • With two similar applications already approved, a third pending, and a fourth expected, the cumulative effect is being systematically underestimated.
  • A simple calculation based on a previous vehicle analysis would suggest an increase of between 42 and 86%.Previous data showed movements of between 207 and 427 vehicles per day.
    
    A simple calculation with 3 units at 60 movements would increase usage by 180 per day a 42-86% increase in traffic 
    We already have a survey showing that the last 10 years have seen an increase of up to 83%. 
• Local Concerns Ignored
  • There has been strong and widespread objection from residents regarding road safety, environmental impact, and local infrastructure limitations.
  • These concerns have not been meaningfully addressed in the application or considered adequately in prior decisions.

Conclusion

The residents object to this application on the basis that it:

• Is based on unreliable and contradictory traffic assessments.
• Proposes unenforceable traffic management solutions.
• Would cause further physical damage to an already degraded and inadequate rural road network.
• Contradicts evidence already submitted by the Highways Authority itself.
• Fails to account for the true environmental and cumulative impacts.
• Fails to account for the true cumulative impact of further traffic from further applications.

I ask you to discuss with Gary Westbrook and request formal objection to this application or at least carry out a full, realistic assessment of the long-term viability of supporting storage and distribution facilities in this area before any further approvals are considered.

Thank you for your time and effort

Andrew

Chair

Steepmarsh Residents Association