Agenda item

Private Road Standard Hill Coalville Leicestershire LE67 3HH

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to members.

Mr K Middleton, applicant, addressed the meeting.  He felt that the application should be granted as he had liaised effectively with the planning department, highway authority and Ward Member, and had addressed the concerns raised throughout the process.  He outlined the separation distances which were similar to other recent applications and would not be overbearing.  He added that the windows had also been positioned strategically to prevent any overlooking.  He contended that the Ward Member had objected to the Bloor scheme opposite because of a lack of affordable housing, and queried why the Ward Member did not support this application. He explained that the properties would be extremely attractive to first time buyers and he made reference to the lack of affordable housing in the area.  He added that the junction was already greatly used, there were no objections from the Highways Authority and there had never been an accident due to lack of visibility, and therefore there was no reason to refuse the application on the grounds of highway safety.  He concluded that the proposals would enhance the area massively and provide much needed starter homes.

It was moved by Councillor D J Stevenson, and seconded by Councillor J Legrys, that the application be refused on highway safety grounds as the access did not meet the required standards in respect of visibility when cars were parked in the parking bays.

Councillor D J Stevenson expressed concerns regarding visibility at the proposed access.  He felt that the development would make this junction more dangerous than it was at present, because to exit the junction, drivers would need to pull out into traffic. He further considered that at least two vehicles per new home proposed by the application would make the existing dangerous situation even more dangerous.

Councillor J Geary corrected Mr Middleton’s statement that he had publicly stated that he was opposed to the application.  He explained that when the plans were first submitted, he did show concern at the close proximity to neighbouring dwellings and these concerns had been addressed.  He added that he had no objection in principle to development on this site, however he expressed concerns about the proposals casting a shadow over existing houses in the late afternoon.  He also expressed concern regarding the access onto Standard Hill, as he felt this was dangerous, and the Highways Authority did not seem to take on board the comments made. He added that there was a history of accidents on that junction and he would not like to feel any way responsible for causing accidents in future. He further stated that if traffic moved at the speed limit then there would not be a problem but this was not the case.

Councillor J Bridges expressed concern that he thought the Council would lose at appeal if the application were to be refused.

Councillor V Richichi stated that he visited the shop fairly regularly and used the proposed access.  He felt the proposal would make little difference to the access and egress, and the road could not be blamed for driver error or speed.  He stated that he would support the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor G Jones stated that he had also used the store on a regular basis.  He felt this was a good development and was needed.  He opined that the road could be busy, so under those conditions people should drive with caution. He expressed support for the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor D Everitt felt that the junction needed to be put right, including bollards and parking arrangements, before the development could proceed.  He considered that the reports about accidents were almost certainly correct.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he was a regular user of Standard Hill.  He referred to the police announcement on social media that they were very concerned about the speed of traffic on Standard Hill and monitoring was being increased.  There had been a fatality nearby. He expressed deep concerns with the state of the junction as visibility was zero, particularly when a large vehicle was parked. 

Councillor M Specht endorsed the comments made by Councillor J Legrys and added that there was no visibility at the junction unless the parking bays were empty, and if parking bays were occupied then road users would have to nose out into fast moving traffic.  He stated that he could not support a proposal that could risk a potential future occupier being killed or seriously injured.

Councillor J Geary requested a recorded vote.

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote.  A recorded vote having been requested, the voting was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors R Adams, R Boam, R Canny, J Clarke, J Cotterill, D Everitt, J Hoult, J Geary, J Legrys, N Smith, M Specht and D J Stevenson (12).

Against the motion:

Councillors J Bridges, J G Coxon, G Jones and V Richichi (4).

Abstentions:

None (0).

It was therefore RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on highway safety grounds due to the access not meeting the required standards in respect of visibility when vehicles were parked in the parking bays.