Agenda item

Land adjacent to Grange Road, Hugglescote, Coalville, Leicestershire

Land adjacent to Grange Road, Hugglescote, Coalville, Leicestershire

Officer’s recommendation: Permit subject to conditions

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Ms D French, objector, addressed the Committee.  She referred to the dangers of crossing Grange Road due to the amount of traffic and felt that the approval of the application would only exacerbate it.  She referred to the assessment on the number of large goods vehicles that had been undertaken and challenged the accuracy as the result had been zero recorded. She explained that her own assessment undertaken that morning had resulted in 11 counted.  The Masterplan stated that this site had a separate access and concerns were raised that the application deviated from it.  She urged Members to refuse the application.

Ms E Overton, agent, addressed the Committee.  She explained that the applicant had met with planning officers, transport consultants and the Highway Authority to address the committee’s previous concerns.  Members were reminded that a road safety audit was only required for the minor change to junction radii and would be undertaken prior to works commencing.  The Highway Authority were happy with the assessments undertaken by the applicant as well as the existing dropped kerb crossing and it was their opinion that the puffin crossing was not necessary.  It was stated that the proposals had gone above the requirements of the Highway Authority and that if refused, the applicant would appeal against the decision.  She urged Members to approve.

Councillor R Johnson, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  He stressed the dangers of crossing Grange Road and his disappointment that the originally proposed puffin crossing had been withdrawn.  Members were informed about the poor visibility and the difficulty for residents when attempting to cross, many residents being children going to school, he felt this proposal would cause residents to be ‘landlocked’ in their homes unable to access the local amenities.  He also had concerns that Heavy Goods Vehicles using the proposed construction access would be too dangerous and this application would go against the Council’s carbon targets regarding pollution.

The Chair opened the application up for debate.

In determining the application, several Members referred to visiting the site and the speed and volume of traffic on Grange Road was recognised along with the dangers it posed.  Most Members felt that a puffin crossing would be beneficial but due to the opinion of the Highway Authority that a crossing was not required, it was acknowledged that options for the Committee were limited. 

During discussion, Members noted the efforts made by the applicant to address highway concerns, but the consensus was that the road would still be difficult for pedestrians to cross due to the speed of traffic and poor visibility.

Members were disappointed that the Highway Authority had chosen to not undertake a full highway audit even though it was requested by committee when the application was previously considered.  A discussion was had on the lack of grounds to refuse the application and costs involved should the application be refused then taken to appeal.  A point was made by a Member that local knowledge was important and should be considered when making a decision even though there was a risk of costs to the Council. 

In response to a question from a Member in relation to the construction access, officers confirmed that in accordance to his own measurements in respect of the existing stopped up access in this position, the stated 20 metre distance to the former railway bridge was accurate.

The officer’s recommendation to permit the application was moved by Councillor R Morris and seconded by Councillor R Canny.

The Chair put the motion to permit the application to the vote.  A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

The motion was LOST.  Therefore, the Chair re-opened the debate and called for an alternative motion.

A discussion was then had on the process of voting and a proposal was made to adjourn the meeting for Members to seek further procedural advice.

The meeting adjourned at 6.55pm and reconvened at 7.06pm.

The Chair once again sought a motion from the Committee.

Following a lengthy discussion on the rules of debate and process for voting on the application, during which advice was provided by officers,  Councillor J Legrys moved that the application be refused on the grounds of highway safety, particularly pedestrian crossing safety.  It was seconded by Councillor P Moult.

The Chair put the motion to the vote.  A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

The motion was CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds of highway safety, particularly pedestrian crossing safety.