Agenda item

The representative of the Service Manager – Development Manager made the following comments:

·        The application was for a variation to the planning permission granted in 2014 for the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads (AVTM) Metrobus scheme and the developments relating to Avon Crescent the present application sought permission to amend the scheme proposed for Avon Crescent.

·        Cllr M Wright had called in the application on the basis that the scheme failed to address the issues of vehicle access and speed along the crescent.

·        A summary of the amendments to the scheme;

o   Removal of proposed ‘shared space’ highway surface treatment, including hard and soft landscaping

o   Proposed speed table to the north of the crescent with cycle access to the MetroBus stop

o   Proposed extended footway area between Avon Crescent and McAdam Way

o   Proposed refuge island, contraflow cycleway

o   Removal of proposed realigned retaining wall between Cumberland Road and Avon Crescent

o   Retention of existing retaining wall between Cumberland Road and Avon Crescent

·        A number of objections had been received from the residents of the crescent to the amended design.

Councillors question of clarification

·        Members asked for to be talked through from the visual plans the cyclist route along the crescent.  During the course of the discussion Officers accepted that the contra flow arrangements only went partially along the crescent; that it put cyclists in the path of parked vehicles; that the cycle provision then disappeared. 

·        That the pavement width requirement for disabled access  was 1.1 metres and the proposed scheme met this requirement because the width of the pavements varied between 1-1.15m.

·        Members commented that this was a less expenses way for the developer to provide the promised shared space scheme. 

·        Officers advised in response that the revised scheme did provide for the reduction in vehicle speed and the reduction in vehicle volumes along the crescent.

·        The speed table was discussed.  The design would incorporate colour to define it.

·        The reason for the diagonal design for parking the bays was explained; leading authorities believed that such a layout allowed for the reduction to the width of the highway this in turn causes a natural reduction in speed.

·        The designs showed the parking bays across from the entrance to the Underfall Yard but members were assured that this was not the final design and adjustment would be made to meet the need for long boats to enter and exit the yard.

Councillor debate:

·        Cllr F Breckels was not happy with the proposed shared scheme suggesting the application should be rejected and should be reconsidered by the applicants

·        Cllr R Eddy agreed adding that residents were promised an alternative scheme but as a result of development cost overruns they were being offered something else.

·        Cllr H Clough shared her concerns about the accessibility to the metrobus stop by those in a wheelchair along the pavement how they would transverse this limited shared space.

·        Members were reminded that they were to consider the application in planning terms and not base the decision on whether it was a better or worse scheme.

·        Members considered speed tables to be ineffective, failing to slow traffic and causing excessive noise as cars failed to slow down before crossing the table.

·        Members noted the design for parking impeded the entrance of the Underfall Yard considering the route for cyclist took them passed parked cars. 

·        Members expressed concern that many aspects of the proposed scheme was unsafe.

·        Cllr M Davies proposed approval of the scheme but no member was prepared to second the proposal to approve.

·        Members discussed with Officers and agreed that a site visit would be arranged and that the application would be deferred until after that visit.  That the applicant would be asked to further consider safety of all users of the Crescent.

·        The Chair proposed and Cllr Davies seconded

Resolved: (unanimously agreed) That the decision on this application would be deferred until after a site visit was arranged.