This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/global/moderngov/pcc/pcc_template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The underlying connection was closed: The connection was closed unexpectedly.

Agenda item

Agenda item

21/00001 - James Callaghan Drive

Application for prior approval (Part 20, Class ZA) relating to the demoltion of existing buildings and construction of 3 storey building to provide 18no. two bedroom flats and 9no. three bedroom flats.

 

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report and drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported that:

 

Change to the wording of recommendation:

From Prior approval not required

To Prior approval required and granted

Further consideration of pedestrian and cyclists' safety on James Callaghan Drive:

·         Manual for Streets suggests people would be willing to walk 800m to access services and facilities,that meet their daily needs. The application site is in excess of 2 miles' walk from the nearest facilities, which exceeds planning guidelines. This suggests residents of the proposed development would be unlikely to access the site by foot.

·         Also, consideration is given to the number or proportion of residents likely to access the site on foot or cycle. A key starting point is the level of occupation of existing and proposed developments, which are approximately 147 employees and approximately 65 residents respectively. It is reasonable to conclude that there is unlikely to be any significant increase in high safety implications given these numbers and how occupiers would seek to exit and access the site via James Callaghan Drive.

·         The site is not connected to or near [including to south of the site] any Public Right of Way.

·         The level of vehicular trips generated by the proposed development (as stated in the report) is unlikely be higher than the existing, thus unlikely to result in highway safety issue in itself. The Local Highway Authority has no data of on incidents as a result of exit and egress from the existing approved site access or occupiers of the site along the section of James Callaghan Drive. Data provided is in respect of incidents in the entire stretch of James Callaghan Drive which is as follows:

  • over the last 5 years (2016-2020) there have been 5 incidents on this stretch of road (not including the junctions at either end) which involved 10 vehicles and resulted in 3 serious injury casualties and 3 slight injury casualties (all of which required hospital attention);

o   The LHA does not have records of near misses or incidents which did not result in personal injury.

·         The data indicates that on average in the last 5 years, one serious incident took place on the entire stretch of the road. Therefore, officers conclude that James Callaghan Drive is not a dangerous road for pedestrians or cyclists and the safety of the residents of the proposed development wishing to enter or leave the site on foot or cycle would not be put at risk.

 

In light of all the information set out above, the recommendation of the Local Planning Authority remains unchanged.

 

Peter Hayward, Island Highways & Transport consultants, was also present for this item.

 

Members' Questions

In response to questions from members, officers explained that:

·         There are parts of the road that have lay-bys which were shown on the plan. There is not capacity for a cycle lane or pedestrian footpath on James Callaghan Drive. The question is whether this provision would be proportionate to the development and the Planning Officer did not think this would be proportionate.

·         The Highways Officer said that there is physical space to create a cycle way or footway segregated from the carriageway, but there is not the opportunity to tie it into anywhere.

·         With regard to safety, there are footpaths on the south side although these are not public rights of way. He would expect an increase of 30% in pedestrian movement from this residential use compared to the historic office use.

·         The Highways Officer reported that in the last five years there have been five incidents; however, the site has not been operating since the mid-1990s. This was along the length of James Callaghan Drive between the roundabouts at either end.  None of the incidents related to vehicles moving on or off the highway and were indicative of excessive speed on the road.  He was concerned with the increase in pedestrian and cycle movement given there is no alternative facility for these users.

·         From 2012 there were three fatalities and two serious injuries. One of the fatalities was at the junction of the site when it was in operation. The planning officers had a differing view as the incidents had not related to pedestrians crossing the road or cyclists, but driver error.

·         The speed limit on this road is 40 miles per hour for the main stretch.

·         There are a number of links that pedestrians can use coming down from Paulsgrove which were pointed out on the map. It was highly probable there would be people walking along James Callaghan Drive from the site access to access any of these footpaths to the south.

·         The proposed development is within Winchester City Council's area and they will be considering the planning application. If members were minded to grant this prior approval, this does not mean that Winchester City Council have to approve the planning application.

·         The land contamination on the site is known to Winchester City Council and they will consider and impose any relevant conditions. 

·         The Local Planning Authority could attach a S106 agreement to the application but this would need to be considered further to see if this was proportionate.

·         The right turn lane heading west currently exists and there are chevron markings to stop overtaking across the front of that junction. The Highways Officer had no concerns on traffic emerging from that junction as the visibility splays are good.  The only concern was for cyclists and pedestrians walking alongside that road and the likelihood of them crossing to access the space to the south.

·         The site is clearly not accessible but this is not a reason for refusal. The Highways Officer felt that the impact on the capacity of network was a material consideration and that it was not safe for pedestrians. There would be a likely 30% increase in pedestrians and he considered that is material and a reason for refusal.

·         Sustainability of the site cannot be considered as this is not a planning application. The legislation narrows the aspects that can be considered.

·         One of the conditions for unlocking the principle for General Permitted Development is that the prior approval grant is given.

·         The Legal Advisor said that there is a conflict of credible officer opinion here on the issue of highway safety and the committee is entitled to pick between the two views. Members could refuse prior approval if they are so minded. The committee could apply conditions; however, in terms of imposing a footway by condition this would not be proportionate.

Members' Comments

·         Some members wished to support the officer recommendation that prior approval is required and granted, taking into account all of the concerns raised today.  It was hoped that Winchester City Council would also take these issues into account when considering the planning application for the building which falls in their area. 

·         Members felt that there may be a case for reinstating the right turn and adding a condition and noted that the roads were dangerous but felt that this could be alleviated with signage.

 

·         Other members felt that the evidence from the Highways Officer on the number of incidents was key and this application would not safeguard pedestrians and cyclists. 

 

RESOLVED to overturn the officers' recommendation that prior approval is required and granted for the following reasons:

 

Prior approval is required and refused due to a likely 30% increase in vulnerable road users resulting in a consequent unacceptable highways safety risk to those users in connection with the proposed development's lack of a safe and suitable access, contrary to paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.          

 

Councillor Fuller thanked officers for their support over the past year and members for their contributions. He thanked Councillor Smyth for being Deputy Chair and chairing meetings where necessary. He wished everyone health and happiness.