Application for demolition of existing workshops and stores and construction of new Medical Centre with associated parking and landscaping.
Late items received after preparation of main agenda:
LCC Highways were re-consulted on the additional information submitted which is as follows:
• Updated Junctions Report – Oct 2021 received 05.11.2021.
Informal conversations have also taken place between LCC Highways and the applicant to determine if the reason for refusal can be overcome. As of 15.11.2021 no way to overcome the reason for refusal had been reached.
LCC Highways have informally reviewed the updated junctions report due to the limited timeframe given and are comfortable that it has been demonstrated that sufficient evidence has been given and this element of the proposal is now acceptable.
Members should be aware that LCC are currently informally reviewing a revised access which has not been formally submitted to the LPA. Whilst the review on this proposal has not been formally concluded LCC Highways still raise concerns with the pedestrian visibility to the north of the access. This coupled with tracking that shows a car running along the kerb line in order to achieve 2 way access leads LCC to maintain that a safe and suitable access has not been demonstrated. In order for LCC to fully review the proposals a revised Road Safety Audit with a Designer’s response and tracking would need to be carried out for the revised access (still in draft form) and submitted for review.
As the application stands it is the access within the committee presentation which is being considered and not the revised access as it has not been formally submitted to the LPA.
The recommendation remains as printed on the agenda.
Application for demolition of existing workshops and stores and construction of new medical centre with associated parking and landscaping.
The applicant spoke on this application.
Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be refused, members felt that the facility was needed in the area and were disappointed with the recommendation of the highways authority that permission be refused. It was moved by Councillor Cope and seconded by Councillor Bray that permission be granted as the need for the facility outweighed the highway safety issues based on evidence of lack of incidents. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was
RESOLVED – Permission be granted subject to:
(i) Conditions, the final detail of which be delegated to the Director (Environment & Planning);
(ii) The completion of a S106 agreement to secure a contribution to meet the cost of a traffic regulation order, the detail of which be delegated to the Director (Environment & Planning).