Agenda item

Application for change of use of land to 2 No. Gypsy / Traveller pitches comprising of 2 static caravans, 1 day room and 2 No. touring caravans and associated infrastructure.

Late items received after preparation of main agenda:

Consultations:-

Paragraph 6.4, point (4) should be replaced with:-

4)         The right of access stated in the application via Wallace Drive is disputed by the owner of that land and there have been gates and a fence erected. A Barrister has confirmed that the applicant does not have a legal right of way

An additional letter has been received raising the following additional matters:-

·         In 2016 the Inspector was not satisfied as to the practicality of bringing two static caravans onto the site either via Wallace Drive or directly from the A50, which was fundamental and was not a matter which could be conditioned

·         The tracking information submitted as part of the application does not stand up to scrutiny

·         The applicant has no control over the access to the A50

·         There has been no tracking information for the A50/Lena Drive Junction

·         No tracking information for a car and touring caravan to proceed down Wallace Drive access been received

·         The Highways Authority has disregarded the Independent assessment

·         An additional reason for refusal should be included on the lack of evidence in being able to practicability of accessing the site

Appraisal:-

Impact upon highway safety and transport

Paragraph 8.19 of the committee report notes that the LPA has instructed independent highway advice to appraise and consider the manoeuvring of caravans beyond the highway boundary, the findings of which will be reported by late item.

This independent advice has been received by the LPA. The independent advice has looked at tracking a vehicle towing a caravan using a larger 4 wheel drive vehicle and a twin axle caravan. The advice provided, identifies that when entering from Wallace Drive the manoeuvring required further along the track, would not be possible without body overhang and with no margin for error. Exiting from the application site along the track toward Wallace Drive has also been considered, and if the full extent of the track as shown on Ordnance Survey is not available, which is the case following a site visit, then exiting the site towing a caravan would not be possible.

Following this advice it is evident that, notwithstanding the dispute regarding legal right of access, that the access from Wallace Drive is not of sufficient width and geometry to allow a touring caravan and car to access the site. As a result of this information, it is therefore likely that the occupiers would utilise the established access track via the A50. This would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic using the A50 access, which would lead to vehicles giving way within or reversing onto an A classified road detrimental to highway safety. Contrary to Policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD, Policy 18 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

Recommendation:-

Amend reason for refusal 1 to read:

1.            The access as proposed via Wallace Drive does not provide an access track of sufficient width and geometry to allow a touring caravan and car to access the site.  In the absence of a suitable access track width from Wallace Drive it is likely that the occupiers would utilise the established access track via the A50. The proposed development would therefore result in an unacceptable increase in traffic using the A50 access that also has inadequate width and geometry. This would lead to vehicles giving way within or reversing on to an A classified road subject to a 40mph speed limit which would have a severe impact on highway safety. This would be contrary to Policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD, Policy 18 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

Reason for refusal 2 remains unchanged.

Application for change of use of land to two gypsy/traveller pitches comprising of two static caravans, one day room and two touring caravans and associated infrastructure.

It was moved by Councillor Cartwright and seconded by Councillor Findlay that permission be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. Following further discussion, Councillor Cartwright, seconded by Councillor Findlay, proposed an amendment that the first sentence of reason for refusal 2 be amended to read “the proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic using access tracks which have inadequate width and geometry and are also public rights of way or intersected by public rights of way”. Upon being put to the vote, the motion as amended was CARRIED and it was unanimously

RESOLVED – permission be refused for the following reasons:

(i)            The access as proposed via Wallace Drive does not provide an access track of sufficient width and geometry to allow a touring caravan and car to access the site.  In the absence of a suitable access track width from Wallace Drive it is likely that the occupiers would utilise the established access track via the A50. The proposed development would therefore result in an unacceptable increase in traffic using the A50 access that also has inadequate width and geometry. This would lead to vehicles giving way within or reversing onto an A classified road subject to a 40mph speed limit which would have a severe impact on highway safety. This would be contrary to policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD, policy 18 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 109 of the NPPF;

(ii)           The proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic using access tracks which have inadequate width and geometry and are also public rights of way or intersected by public rights of way. This would lead to a conflict between pedestrians and motorists using the track and ultimately pedestrian safety issues. This would be contrary to policy DM17 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD and policy 18 of the Core Strategy.