Proposed extension of Turnpike traveller site.

Application refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and the updates/representation received following the publication of the agenda, as provided in the update sheet and appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Pace, spoke on behalf of Pembridge and Shobdon parish councils, Mr Stokes, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Fry, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the council's constitution, the local award member spoke on the application. He explained that the primary issues regarding the application concerned the highway safety and welfare of travellers, their children and the drivers of vehicles destined to local businesses. The proposed entrance to the site was on a road serving a busy industrial area and evidence was presented of the projected vehicle movements along the road on which the entrance was sited. It was projected that there would be over 600 vehicle movements per day on the road and that movements would continue into the night on the road where there was no lighting. There was concern that there had not been an adequate highway safety assessment due to the access road being located on private land. The applicant was urged reassess the site with a different layout and a single entrance to address concerns regarding the hazard post to residents on the site by the busy, unlit access road. The committee was urged to reject the application as it was in conflict with the core strategy and the Pembridge Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

The committee debated the application. During consideration of the application the committee raised the following principal points:

- The location for the caravan site was in a suitable position;

- There was an advisory speed limit of 20 miles per hour on the road, but as it was a private road it was not possible to enforce the limit;

- The projected increase in the number of vehicles using the road was significant:

- There was an open space in close proximity to the road. The site would require adequate fencing and the maintenance of that fencing, to prevent open access to the road from the site; and

- The proximity of the road to the site posed serious highway safety concerns and a reassessment of the location of the access was urged.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He explained that objections to the application did not concern the principle of the site in its current location but the highway safety of local residents and drivers.

A motion that the application be refused due to highway safety concerns relating to the entrance to the site and the access road, contrary to core strategy policies TS1 (6), TS7 (8), MT1 and SD1, was proposed by Councillor Stef Simmons and seconded by councillor Richard Thomas. The motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED – That:

The application be refused due to highway safety concerns relating to the entrance to the site and the access road, contrary to core strategy policies TS1 (6), TS7 (8), MT1 and SD1.

There was an adjournment at 10:54 a.m.; the meeting reconvened 11:04 a.m.

Councillor Catherine Gennard joined the meeting at 11:04 a.m.