Development of 44 dwellings.

Application approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr White spoke on behalf of Weston under Penyard parish council and Ms McPherson, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that an earlier application concerning the site proposed a controlled crossing across the A40. The current application should contain an identical provision in order to protect local residents from Penyard Gardens and the proposed development. The crossing would protect local residents from significant highway safety risks posed by the road. The road was straight and vehicles had been recorded travelling in excess of 70 MPH and sometimes 100 MPH in the 30 MPH speed limit zone. A pedestrianised crossing was a much wanted and needed element of the earlier application which had now been removed from the current application. The current application contained a roundabout which was positioned off line from the existing road and was intended to deflect and slow cars. However, the position of the roundabout would not deflect or slow traffic travelling from Gloucester. The effectiveness of the roundabout had also been questioned in the applicant’s own assessments. The local parish council had asked for a review of the roundabout but this had been refused. The inclusion of a roundabout in preference to a signalised crossing in the application was considered a cost saving measure. It was requested that a pedestrianised crossing should be required as part of the application which should be refused until such a measure was included.

The committee debated the application. There was division among members of the committee regarding the process to be followed to consider and potentially implement a signalised pedestrian crossing on the A40. The committee considered the importance of the roundabout in slowing traffic and discussed the preferred location of a pedestrianised crossing to protect the highway safety of local residents and contribute to an effective traffic calming scheme. The committee considered the heads of terms to be incorporated in the section 106 agreement, the transport contribution in the heads of terms which could be allocated towards a pedestrian crossing and the road safety audit. It was the contention of some members of the committee that the application should not be approved without the inclusion of pedestrian crossing whilst other members of the committee felt that the provision of a crossing should be taken forward as part of the section 106 agreement process following approval of the application.

The Development Manager Service Manager explained that the earlier application had concerned outline permission for the site and a crossing had been included in drawings but the crossing had not been secured in the section 106 agreement or in conditions. Funding had already been secured in the heads of terms towards the transport contribution, £86,000, which could be allocated to works for a pedestrian crossing but it was acknowledged that additional funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54