This item had been considered by the Committee at its Meeting on 6th November 2018, but a decision had been deferred pending a site visit. The site visit took place on 19th December 2018 and Members were reminded that only those who attended the site visit could participate in the item at this Meeting. The Members who attended the site visit were as follows: Lesley Alexander, Mike Davies, Carla Denyer, Richard Eddy, Fi Hance, Sultan Khan, Olly Mead and Jo Sergeant.
The Head of Development Management and his representative presented this item and made the following comments:
· This is an application to vary a Condition (No. 15) on a previously granted permission
· It is to improve highway safety
· Drivers will be slowed down through various measures
· Members attention was also drawn to Condition 9
· The application was recommended for approval
Answers to questions
· The Committee is acting as the Planning Authority and the decision on the application has to be made on planning grounds
· The scheme was originally approved in 2014 and revisions have been made since then
· A Condition concerning access to Underfall Yard is included
· The footway width is a minimum of 1.1 m but varies and is considered acceptable; it would be difficult to get a wider footway
· The trees are not detailed on the plan as there is a Condition to require the submission of details of landscaping
· Having a cycleway all along the street would impinge on parking
· Although there is No Entry at one end it is effectively a two way street; it will be narrowed and the proposed table will reduce speeds
· Any diversionary route would cut off access to businesses
· There will be a small increase in the number of proposed on-street parking spaces
· Residents and businesses were consulted as part of the scheme evolution
· A Zebra Crossing was not considered to be deliverable
· The scheme has to be assessed against Policy and although this scheme is not optimum it is considered to be acceptable
· It was not considered that assurances to residents had been met and there were concerns about safety
· There was disappointment with the scheme
· There were concerns that the quality of the safety measures had been reduced to save money
· The scheme was not considered acceptable on highway safety grounds
· In response the Head of Development Management advised that an unintended consequence could be that no scheme is delivered. The revised scheme had been submitted because the project did not have the budget to deliver the original scheme and if permission was refused for this scheme it was possible that Avon Crescent could remain unchanged. There was no effective legal powers to require the original scheme to be implemented.
Members were reminded that they could refuse, approve or defer a decision on the application. They could also strengthen Condition 9.
Councillor Eddy moved refusal of the application on highway and pedestrian safety grounds. This was seconded by Councillor Mead and on being put to the vote, it was
Resolved (5 for, 1 against, 2 abstention) – that the application be refused on highway and pedestrian safety grounds.