PKC under fire over traffic assessment
Developers have criticised Perth and Kinross Council for seeking to absolve itself from blame for the production of a flawed transport assessment used to back a bid to build over 120 new homes in Perth.
Lawyers acting for Rivertree Residential say it’s “extraordinary” the council has retrospectively claimed software it apparently insisted engineering consultants Arup use to produce the assessment in support of two major planning applications was “wholly unsuitable”.
Bristol-based law firm Burges Salmon LLP claims PKC “expressly agreed” Arup should use LinSig software to predict how Rivertree Residential’s proposed development at the former Murray Royal Hospital would impact on local roads, including the frequently backed up Bridgend junction.
And the lawyers have argued that, since the local authority initially raised no concerns about the software, at least some of its closing submission to a Scottish Government inquiry concerning councillors’ failure to determine the two planning applications last year ought to be disregarded.
The council’s planning and development management committee opted to defer a decision on the applications last October despite officers recommending both be refused over concerns the transport assessment had seriously underestimated how much additional traffic the development would generate.
Rivertree Residential then appealed to the government for a decision on both applications in December prompting a week long inquiry in June.
Burges Salmon LLP has claimed in its closing submission: “It is now agreed that [LinSig’s] use was expressly agreed without reservation by [PKC’s transport planning team leader Alexander] Deans himself in 2017.
“His current evidence as to its use now is extraordinary in that context.
“If it was, as he now suggests, wholly unsuitable, it was incumbent on him to make that clear at the time knowing that it was to be used in a TA (transport assessment) that was itself to be incorporated in an EIA (environmental impact assessment).
“That he did not do so suggests at the very least it is not as unsuitable as he suggests. To suggest as PKC does in its closing for effectively the first time that the EIA is defective is gross overstatement. It used accurate data correctly. The submission is not sustainable. Mr Deans has produced nothing to back up this belatedly acquired view of the use of LinSig.”
Elsewhere in its submission, Burges Salmon LLP also criticises PKC’s insistence the proposed development must be phased to coincide with the creation of the much-anticipated Cross Tay Link Road (CTLR).
PKC said in its closing submission: “The appellant opposes any phasing condition for either appeal on the basis of Arup’s transport assessment. [However], as we have seen that should not be relied upon.
“The appellant also opposes any link to CTLR suggesting this would kill the project, however, unfortunately, no evidence was presented in that regard.
“Given the existing adverse traffic conditions and that the development would only add to this, and that the accepted relief would be CTLR, there should be a link to that project.”
But Burges Salmon LLP said: “It is surprising but consistent with PKC’s officer led approach that [its] closing submission continues to emphasise the CTLR and the planning embargo.
“It is surprising because (a) it is agreed that the embargo does not apply to this proposal and (b) the proposal adds no traffic from the Scone direction and (c) the local [development] plan reporters have rejected PKC’s attempt to add this site to those embargoed.”
The government reporter assigned to determine both appeals, Dan Jackman, has not yet indicated when he expects to make a decision.