Agenda item

The Committee received a presentation from officers concerning this Planning Application during which the following comments were made:

·         The proposed road works were mitigation and formed part of the Cotham School expansion that had previously been agreed by the Committee and had now happened.

·         Whilst lessons could be learnt from the consultation process, the proposed pedestrian crossing was in the optimum location as identified in the Transport Statement

·         The proposed road works had been submitted by Bristol City Council’s Capital Team and had been approved by committee in November 2017

·         An additional entry form had been approved as part of the expansion with a 135 pupil uplift in pupil numbers

·         There was now a large building on site and with new facilities opened

·         An aerial view of the school site showed main roads surrounding the building

·         An analysis had been made into the best way of mitigating transport movement and the proposed measures were considered vital to secure a safe environment

·         In view of current traffic levels and pedestrian desire line, this was deemed to be the only location available

·         A number of photos showed the location of the site including dropped kerbs. The site was already used by children to cross

·         The site had been previously been identified as a safety concern by the Neighbourhood Partnership

·         The proposed pedestrian improvements had been acknowledged as reasonable and so these had been added as a condition to the proposal. The pavement build out had therefore been moved to Pitch Lane to better reflect the desire line

·         Following consultation, objections had been received from the nursery, parents and Councillor Anthony Negus

·         The principal objections were that other locations should be investigated, the data was unreliable and out of date, parking availability will be restricted and the security of users will be compromised

·         Bristol walking Alliance supported the scheme and stated that a crossing had been long identified and was required

·         TDM had identified that a crossing was necessary in this location and that the application should be approved subject to recommendations. It would also encourage walking to school

·         Officers believed that the provision of the crossing would address safety measures identified in accordance with the Local Policy

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following responses:

·         The nursery had been consulted on the current application. However, due to the way that the consultation process operated, it is possible that local people were not consulted for the discharge of conditions  application. There should have been communication between Bristol City Council’s team and the school on this issue

·         The scheme was subject to a quality assurance process

·         If the proposed mitigation scheme was not approved, there was no power for the Committee to consider other applications.

·         The Highways Team believed that there was sufficient capacity for parking on site. However, it was within walking distance which would encourage children to walk to school

·         It would be beyond a reasonable interpretation of the condition to choose another site for the crossing

·         A Memorandum of Understanding was operating between different parts of Bristol City Council

·         The expansion derived from the Schools Expansion Team and the mitigation measures for read traffic were deemed necessary as part of this. A budget from public funding had already been earmarked for the expansion of the scheme

Councillors made the following comments:

·         A different route on Cotham Park North had been suggested as an alternative route which superseded the 2019 assessment of Pitch Lane site as the best option. This was a shorter route than Pitch Lane although on an initial analysis the latter might appear to be

·         This scheme should not be supported. The school had indicated that it was not necessary. It was based on the former Transport Statement which placed the expansions to the school in a different location and the crossing in a different place.

·         The logic for supporting the scheme seemed to be  based on a perceived lack of alternative options rather than it being the most appropriate one. It should not be supported.

·         Local residents had stated that it would make a bad situation worse. A speed table at the junction might be the best option in this instance. It was disappointing to see that so much work had gone into a scheme which was flawed due to lack of proper consultation

·         Children would continue to use this route and cross the road. Since it was quite a dangerous road, it needed a crossing point but the school objected to it. There was a concern that no traffic measures would be introduced at the site and then a serious accident could occur within the next few months if the application was refused

·         In future, as a Local Planning Authority, more consideration was required for the way that that the consultation process operated concerning application for the discharge of conditions

Councillor Mike Davies moved, seconded by Councillor Margaret Hickman that the application be approved.

Upon being put to the vote, it was LOST ( 4 FOR, 6 AGAINST, I ABSTENTION).

The Committee then discussed other options concerning this application, including to defer it pending analysis on the consultation process or refusal.

Councillor Mark Wright moved, seconded by Councillor Steve Smith and upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED (6 FOR, 4 AGAINST, 1 ABSTENTION) – that the application is refused on the grounds that the proposed scheme will fail to realise the intended benefits to the detriment of highway safety for all highway users.