Mirehouse Road & St Bees Road Junction

Just to keep everyone up to speed on the junction of St Bees Road and Mirehouse Road on which a number of residents have expressed safety concerns to myself or to Wammo Walmsley.

As I recently posted, it has been agreed that West Cumbria Mining will pay for some significant improvement work to this junction through a planning agreement (known as a Section 106 agreement) on the planning application.

However, an engineering safety audit had already recommended some repainting work on the road markings, and as it was a safety issue, it has been decided not to wait until we get the money from West Cumbria Mining before going ahead with that work.

So if you see the road being repainted, this isn't part of the more substantial works which the Mine application is funding, this is being done by Cumbria County council using the ordinary highways budget.

 I do not have a date yet for the larger reconfiguration which the mine will pay for, but as soon as I have further information I will post it here.

Comments

Gary Bullivant said…
Could be a fair old delay on those road works then. It seems WCM are tightening their belts as they appear to be finding the necessary further funding something of a challenge. Objectors, on the other hand, appear not to be having any difficulty at all raising funds for seeking a Judicial Review.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/cumbriancoal2/

Chris Whiteside said…
Anyone who gives financial support to a judicial review might as well set fire to their cash.

My understanding is that the reason it took so long to get confirmation that the mine would not be called in is that the department were bending over backwards to ensure that the decision was proof against any judicial review. Just as CCC took two years to determine the application because they were making every effort to ensure that whatever decision was eventually made was fireproof against any legal challenge.
Gary Bullivant said…
My point was about the likelihood of ongoing delay due to funding issues but thank you for the insight into the authorities' support to the company.
Chris Whiteside said…
Making every effort to make sure that the decisions of a public body, be it a local authority or a government department, have followed due process and are legally sound and not vulnerable to challenges such as a judicial review is not the same thing as providing "support" to any party in a planning process, be it the applicant or the objectors.

The technical term for it is "doing your job properly."

This was a fantastically complex application, indeed one of the two most complicated of the thousands of planning applications I have seen, and reviewing and assessing it fairly and with due diligence could not be done without taking the necessary time to do a proper job.
Anonymous said…
Can you tell us and point us to the plans of how the world famous 'Coast to Coast' path is going to go under the Rail Loading Facility, or hasn't it been properly considered?
Chris Whiteside said…
I have previously linked to the committee report, all 188 pages of it, which is still available on the County Council website.

http://councilportal.cumbria.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=124&MId=11050&Ver=4

The section 106 agreement includes an element which could be used to address any such problem if it arises.
Anonymous said…
Thanks for once again confirming that this footpath hasn't been properly considered.
Obviously the bottom of the Conveyor Culvert being more than 4m below ground level and the footpath going under this culvert then back up to ground level before going under the railway then over pow beck, all without introducing a steps (the Equality Act) is something you and the Council deems reasonable.

Popular posts from this blog

Nick Herbert on his visit to flood hit areas of Cumbria

Quotes of the day 19th August 2020

Quote of the day 24th July 2020