Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Construction of two dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

45.44        This application was for the construction of two dwellings.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 19 September 2023 to allow Officers to assess further information in relation to highways, including clarification of land ownership to ensure the required visibility splays could be maintained in perpetuity and for accident records and speed measurements to be obtained.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 July 2023 and a site visit had been carried out by the County Highways Officer, Planning Officer and local Ward Member on 8 August 2023.

45.45        The Planning Officer advised that, following the site visit by the County Highways Officer, an amended plan had been provided which showed visibility splays of 2.4m x 90m and 2.4m x 120m could be achieved within the red line boundary. The County Highway Officer had reviewed the speed surveys produced by the applicant and taken his own speed readings of free flow traffic whilst on site. The County Highways Officer had concluded that the proposal for two dwellings with an access of 90m stopping sight distance would be acceptable and recommended a number of conditions including submission of a Construction Management Plan.  Members were reminded that the application site was located within the settlement boundary of New Town, Toddington, therefore, the principle of residential development at this site was considered to be acceptable. No objections had been received from statutory consultees in relation to, highways, drainage, ecology, environmental health and landscaping and it was recommended that the application be permitted subject to conditions.

45.46        The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee. The local resident indicated that she objected on the grounds of loss of privacy and loss of light to her home and her submissions at previous Planning Committee meetings still stood.  The development of two houses would devastate existing houses, affecting all those along the strip and opposite, and she asked for the request for bungalows to be addressed instead.  With regard to the County Highways document dated 2 November 2023, the document stated that County Highways had no objection subject to certain conditions being achieved. She believed any conditions related to safety must be achieved before planning permission could even be considered.  The Council had a duty of care to ensure that all safety requirements had been considered and adhered to; this would be the third time that the highway safety of this application had been questioned and the only way to ensure that the development would be safe was for the conditions to be implemented prior to permission being granted or to refuse the proposal.  It had been stated that a visibility splay of 2.4m by 90m had been submitted and confirmed achievable; however, this was untrue as Google Maps showed the line of sight of 90m cut through hedges and trees - a more accurate line of sight was 43m which would miss all real world obstructions. Google Maps streetview, from the westbound side, showed a clear line of sight at only 28m, not 90m.  Her next point referred to the stopping site distance theoretical calculation.  The County Highways report stated that a County Highways Officer had taken a small sample of speed readings and the 85th percentile was 44mph; if that was taken to be correct, the stopping sight distance for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) was calculated at 94m with a two second reaction time and cars calculated at 76m with a 1.5 second reaction time.  The table taken from the applicant’s original document showed that a reaction time of two seconds should be taken for all vehicles, therefore, the 94m should apply to both HGVs and cars.  In a 10 day period, approximately 900 vehicles travelled over 50mph; it was unknown how many of those were lorries but, in any case, the data showed that the road saw speeds of an unusually high nature, and was not accurately reflected using the 85^th percentile method where too many lower speeds removed an equal amount of very high speeds.  The report also stated that no vegetation exceeding 600mm in height above the adjoining highway would be allowed to grow within the visibility splays and she questioned how that would be upheld and who was liable if an accident occurred on this 40mph road.

45.47        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and sought a motion from the floor.  A Member sought confirmation that County Highways was happy with the application and had no concerns.  In response, the County Highways representative advised that, following the Committee meeting in July, he had visited the site with the applicant; the submitted plans showed a line of sight 2.4m back from the middle of the new access location and he had personally walked along the road and taken measurements which confirmed this was accurate.  As such, he was satisfied that the scheme would have adequate visibility splays.  The access, as amended, allowed plenty of visibility for approaching vehicles with visibility measured to the nearside of the kerb assuming some motorcyclists or cyclists may be travelling at 40mph on the inside kerb – if it was a car, the driver would be further out in the lane therefore having increased visibility.  Drivers emerging from the access could see oncoming vehicles at 2.4m and any drivers on the main road would be able to see their bonnet which further reduced risk of a collision.  Nevertheless, 90m visibility could be achieved and, having assessed the speed himself with a speed gun, he was satisfied it was acceptable. 

45.48        A Member raised concern that the report stated that, ideally, the speed limit would be reduced to 35mph in the locality and she asked whether it was possible to include this as a condition.  The Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) indicated that Officers considered that highway safety issues had been addressed and it would be unreasonable to impose another condition; however, there were mechanisms outside of planning to reduce speed limits and that could be picked up outside of the meeting.  Another Member indicated that she had asked if a 30mph speed limit could be made a condition and had been advised it would need to go through a Traffic Regulation Order process; as a Ward Councillor for the area she had been working with the Parish Council to set up a community speed watch group in relation to the speed of the road – Toddington was crying out for a 30mph limit and she welcomed any comments from County Highways which would support that. 

45.49        It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion indicated that she had previously expressed major concerns regarding speeding on the road and the location of the access point and she had not been willing to accept County Highways original response; it had clearly not been safe and a lot of work had subsequently been done to relocate the access into the site.  Officers had given assurance it was possible to maintain the require visibility splays which they were confident were achievable therefore she was able to make a proposal in line with the Officer recommendation.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.