Agenda item

It was proposed by Councillor Patch and seconded by Councillor J Petherick that the application be refused due to being contrary to policies S1 and S22.

A roll call was taken.

For

Cllrs Bradford, Colclough, H Cox, Hayes, J Hook, Kerswell, MacGregor, Nutley, Nuttall, Parker, Patch, Petherick, and Wrigley.

Total: 13

Against

Cllrs Bullivant, Clarance, Jeffery, Keeling, Haines and Goodman-Bradbury

Total: 6

Resolved

That planning permission be refused due to concerns of highway safety.

Note: The decision to refuse the application was against officer recommendation. The Committee considered this application unacceptable for the reasons below.

Statement of Reason

The Committee considered this application unacceptable due to being contrary to policies S1 and S22 as a result of the impact on highway safety.

The Committee considered the agenda report and additional information reported

by the Business Manager- Strategic Place.

Public Speaker - Objector: Points raised include: The road is narrow, low visibility on the road, use of the road by pedestrians and horse riders, blind bend on the road, tight junctions, negative impact on road to Bickington, increased pollution from cars, concerns about school safety, and impact on character of the area.

Public Speaker - Supporter: Points raised include: Help to support jobs, A382 still needs works doing, helps reduce congestion on main road into Trago, increased traffic needs to be redirected, the access will be built before the road reaches the school, no objections from consultees, helps to secure the business from future problems, and helps with community recovery.

Comments from Councillors include: Will not reduce as much congestion as is claimed, worse use of car park assets by the applicant, concerns about the need to redirect traffic during construction, the amount of queueing on the roads has been underestimated, the traffic estimate is outdated due to new developments in the area, concerns about road safety in the area, concerns about road conditions, and concerns about validity of data.

The Planning Officer responded by stating that there were no objections from DCC, there would not be significant congestion, the application could not be refused on any highway grounds without showing alternative evidemce as there had been no objections from the highway officer.

Further comments from Councillors included: Secondary road will not impact business, Bickington will be negatively impacted, the statistics are inaccurate, conclusions drawn from data are unrealistic, increase in traffic through Bickington, improvements made to the A382 can be used instead of a new access to help with traffic, Drumbridges isn’t congested, and concerns that the new road will be a rat run.

The Planning Officer responded by saying that 1500 people were surveyed and that given the increase would be about 1000 cars during peak times on Saturday, the increase in traffic of 2 cars per minute was considered acceptable.

Further comments from Councillors included: Site is a flooding risk and there needs to be improvements made if this is to be included, the road is single lane, unsuitable road conditions, and unacceptable environmental impact.

The Business Manager told the Committee that they would need clear Planning reasons to refuse the application, using NPPF guidance.

Further comments from Councillors include: The road is not as busy as other members suggest, most people travel the road on bicycles not by car, very few houses on Staplehill Road, road will have little impact on surrounding area including the school, the new route is shorter which would reduce traffic, there should be a roundabout included to help with traffic, road is an accident blackspot, contrary to policy S1, concerns about the highway assessments, and little room for cars to pass each other on road.

It was proposed by Councillor Patch and seconded by Councillor Petherick that the application be refused due to concerns about highway safety.

A roll call was taken.

For

Cllrs Bradford, Colclough, Cox, Hayes, Hook, Kerswell, MacGregor, Nutley, Nuttall, Parker, Patch, Petherick, and Wrigley.

Total: 13

Against

Cllrs Bullivant, Clarance, Jeffery, Keeling, Haines and Goodman-Bradbury

Total: 6

Resolved

That planning permission be refused due to concerns of highway safety.

Note: The decision to refuse the application was against officer recommendation. The Committee considered this application unacceptable for the reasons below.

Statement of Reason

The Committee considered this application unacceptable due to the proposed development impacting highway safety in the area. In particular, at the junction of Bickington Road and the A383 and at Bickington Road/Staplehill Road.