Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2014/186

Contact: Jim Daughton, Service Manager – Delivery Tel: (01865) 815083

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Commercial) (CMDE9).

This proposal arises from the development of 73 dwellings on land adjacent to the A417 in Stanford in the Vale which was determined on Appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. The consented scheme contained various traffic measures along A417 including a puffin crossing outside the Horse & Jockey Public House. The results of a formal consultation under the Road Traffic Regulation Act for the proposed crossing at this location were reported to the Cabinet Member decisions meeting in September 2014 when it was agreed to proceed. However, shortly after the decision to approve implementation of the crossing outside the public house, representations were received from and on behalf of the Parish Council requesting that the matter be reconsidered and following a meeting with the Chairman of the Parish Council, officers were instructed to carry out further consultation on locating the crossing north of Nursery End (the vehicular access to the development).

This report presents objections and other comments received in response to a statutory consultation on the revised proposals.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the implementation of the proposed puffin crossing approximately 12m south east of the advertised position as described in the report.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE9) objections and comments received in response to a statutory consultation on revised proposals for a puffin crossing on A417 in Stanford in the Vale. The proposal had arisen as a result of a 73 dwelling development adjacent to the A417 which had been determined on appeal by the Planning inspectorate. An earlier proposal agreed in September 2014 to site a crossing outside the public house had then been deferred by mutual agreement to enable further consultation on a revised location north of Nursery End.

Anthony Lock a resident of Spencers Close expressed concerns regarding noise created by the road surface bouncing off houses at a point which had until recently been an open field and the crossing bleeper itself and requested that that be set so it did not operate over night.  He was not convinced that the siting as now proposed was in the optimum place with regard to road safety as there were concerns that children, one of the most vulnerable groups, would take the most direct route to cross which was away from the line of the crossing.

Peter Gill on behalf of the parish council preferred siting of the crossing nearer to the roundabout and hoped that all the points raised would be considered as part of the section 278.  The parish council accepted that the costs were being met by the developer but they were seeking the best outcome for all and having raised a number of issues including minimalistic design and dropped kerbs hoped that the final outcome would of benefit to residents rather than the developer.

Lee Turner advised that efforts would be made to minimise equipment as much as possible including the kind of road surface required and turning off the signals at night. With regard to concerns raised regarding desire lines he confirmed that the consultation undertaken had met standard guidance with regard to distances from a side road although there had been a slight compromise in order to site the crossing where it was felt that the majority of people would cross.

David Tole added that officers had been aware of the issues in the village and it was hoped that the scheme as now proposed would achieve an appropriate solution rather than a purely technical one.  Some of the matters raised would be picked up as part of the design process and he was confident that many of the concerns expressed would be addressed and officers would continue to work with residents in order to arrive at the best scheme possible before installation.  Lighting would be required as part of the development and he had been advised that 6m columns would be necessary, which would be lower than those at Farm Place roundabout

The Cabinet Member for Environment recognised that as part of a planning permission it was not an option not to provide a crossing and accepted officer advice that from a professional point of view a crossing was necessary. Therefore having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him and the considerations set out above he confirmed his decision as follows:

to approve implementation of the proposed puffin crossing approximately 12m south east of the advertised position as described in the report CMDE9.

Signed…………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing…………………………