Archived decisions

Contact: Marc Samways, tel: 01329 824363

email: [email protected]

1. Introduction

1.1 This report considers the promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order by Havant Borough Council to facilitate the redevelopment of 49 Bedhampton Hill, Havant. The Traffic Regulation Order as proposed would extend the existing "no waiting, at any time" restriction on the south-east side of Bedhampton Hill south-westwards to the existing northern access of 49 Bedhampton Hill, thereby providing the recommended visibility splay for this access which is presently obstructed by on-street parking.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Traffic Regulation Order for Bedhampton Hill, Havant, as detailed in Appendix 2 and as set out on drawing number Hi 12/253, be made.

3. Justification and Details of Proposal

3.1 The redevelopment of 49 Bedhampton Hill (sub-division of the existing development into six self-contained flats) was considered by Havant Borough Council's Development Control Committee in July and August 2005.

3.2 The existing development is served by two accesses from Bedhampton Hill. The proposed redevelopment would involve the closure of the southern access and all vehicular traffic using the existing northern access.

3.3 The Highway Authority raised objection to the proposed development on the grounds of the potential impact of the more intensive use of the remaining northern access on highway user safety. The Highway Authority was concerned that due to persistent indiscriminate on-street parking on the south-east side of Bedhampton Hill, immediately north-east of the northern access, would obstruct the required visibility splay for the access and therefore compromise highway safety.

3.4 The Borough Council's Development Control Committee refused the planning application and included the highway objection in the list of reasons for refusal.

3.5 The developer appealed the decision and a pre-inquiry unilateral agreement was signed by the developer relating to making a financial contribution towards the promotion and implementation of a Traffic Regulation Order to secure the visibility splay.

3.6 The Planning Inspector allowed the appeal. The Planning Inspector in his reasons for making the decision stated:

"With regards to the second main issue (the development's effect on the safety and free flow of traffic in Bedhampton Hill), it is proposed to use the existing access adjacent to Chase Cottage to serve the proposed development. Given that the existing development is served by two accesses, one of which would not be available to the proposed development, and bearing in mind also the increased frequency of traffic movements that would arise, I consider that the proposal includes new access arrangements to which Structure Plan Policy T6 and Local Plan Policy T7 apply.

I observed at the site visit several vehicles parked nearby on Bedhampton Hill which in relation to the access of the proposed development obscured the visibility of traffic approaching from the north-east. The Council's evidence indicates that this parking is indiscriminate and occurs during daylight and darkness in association with residential properties fronting the road. In my opinion, because of this restricted visibility, vehicles emerging from the proposed development would have to move out into the carriageway to obtain sight of, and be seen by, traffic approaching from the north-east.

Bedhampton Hill is a busy road linking the urban area to the nearby strategic network of the A27 and A3(M). Therefore, given the nature and volume of traffic involved, I consider that the restricted visibility from the access to the appeal site could give rise to conditions significantly harmful to the free flow and safety of traffic on the highway.

The appellant has submitted a planning obligation by unilateral undertaking, indicating that no development shall take place unless and until a contribution not exceeding £3,000 plus indexation has been paid to the Council towards a Traffic Regulation Order that would secure visibility sightlines at the access to the appeal site. I agree with the Council's view that the Traffic Regulation Order should secure a sightline of 70 metres north-east from the access serving the proposed development, and I note that the Traffic Regulation Order would also define an alternative on-street parking area to accommodate the displaced vehicles.

In my opinion, such a Traffic Regulation Order would deal adequately with the concerns about highway visibility at the access to the site, and therefore the contribution of a sum of money to enable it to be promoted and implemented is necessary. Also, taking account of the submission I consider that the sum of not more than £3,000 is reasonable in order to achieve the Traffic Regulation Order, and in other respects the planning obligation meets the relevant tests of Circular 05/2005 - Planning Obligations.

However, the payment of a financial contribution would not itself secure the implementation of the Traffic Regulation Order. In my opinion, because of the importance of the Traffic Regulation Order in overcoming the concerns about highway visibility, it would be necessary for this matter to be controlled by planning condition. Reference is made in the Council's Highway evidence (part of the submission dated 8 November) that an appropriate "trigger" would be development could not be occupied until the Traffic Regulation Order had been implemented. I consider that this would be reasonable bearing in mind the submitted evidence that a Traffic Regulation Order of this nature should take 6 to 9 months to promote and implement, and also that a financial contribution is available that would assist in dealing with the matter in a reasonable period of time.

Subject to such a condition, I consider that the proposal would not adversely affect the safety and free flow of traffic in Bedhampton Hill and would accord with Structure Plan policy T6 and Local Plan policy T7."

A full copy of the Planning Inspector's appeal decision is attached as Appendix 1.

3.7 The Borough Council prepared a waiting restriction Order that met the Inspector's decision. The Order is attached as Appendix 2; the various terms and conditions are set out as an addendum and the waiting restriction scheme is shown on drawing number Hi 12/253.

3.8 The local County Member (Councillor Mrs Buckley) submitted a letter of objection along with 33 letters from residents or their representatives, a letter from a charity and a letter from a business. A précis of the objections and the officer's comments is attached as Appendix 3.

3.9 The Highway Authority officer's recommendation was that as the objections contained no material consideration(s) that would alter the original recommendation and neither traffic or highway conditions had changed since the highway comments were first made that the Traffic Regulation Order should be made as advertised. The Police supported the proposal.

3.10 The Highway Traffic Management Agency Agreement requires that when the local County Member objects to a proposed Traffic Regulation Order being promoted by a District Council the Order should be determined by the Highway Authority (paragraph 2.2 (a) (iii) refers). Unfortunately, this was not appreciated at that time. Consequently the Havant Borough Council Executive considered the objections at its meeting on 7 February 2007. The Havant Executive resolved that the Traffic Regulation Order as advertised be not made and the reason being "Discussion of this matter would NOT result in the taking of a key decision if the recommendation (implement the Order as advertised) was approved."

3.11 The Havant Executive's decision meant that it was not possible for the developer to proceed with the redevelopment. Following discussions with Havant Borough Council and the developer the Borough Council decided to advertise a new Traffic Regulation Order which merely addressed the Planning Inspector's requirement. The waiting scheme is shown on drawing number Hi 12/253. The waiting restriction proposal was advertised for public comment in June/July 2007.

3.12 The local County Member (Councillor Mrs Buckley) submitted a letter of objection which she subsequently withdrew. There were 24 other objections received - two from 2 District councillors, 21 from residents and one from an agent representing a resident. Three letters of support were received. The letters of objection raised the same issues as those issues raised when the more comprehensive Order was advertised.

3.13 The reasons for objection raise no material consideration that would justify the Highway Authority not making the Traffic Regulation Order as advertised.

3.14 The County Council's Chief Executive Department recommended that the matter should be determined by the County Council as the local county councillor had raised an objection to the proposed Order.

3.15 The Highway Authority's officer's recommendation to make the Order as advertised is based on the opinion that there is a need to implement the planning condition and thereby facilitating the re-development, and that no justifiable reason has been raised by the objectors as to why the waiting restrictions should not be implemented. However, the effectiveness of these proposals would be monitored in accordance with usual arrangements.

3.16 Attached are:

(i) the 2006 and 2007 traffic orders (Appendices 4 and 2);

(ii) a location plan.

4. Consultation

4.1 The Traffic Regulation Order's consultation period, results of the consultation and Police comments are précised in paragraphs 3.11-3.15 above.

5. Local Members' View

5.1 The local Members, Councillors Mrs Buckley and Mrs Edwards, have been consulted. Councillor Mrs Buckley does not support the proposal as it would increase vehicle speeds on Bedhampton Hill, make it difficult and dangerous for residents from 37a-49 to emerge from their drives onto Bedhampton Hill, and displaced vehicle drivers would be required to cross the busy road which can be difficult due to the volume of traffic. Councillor Mrs Edwards does not support the proposal for the reasons raised by the residents.

6. Cost

6.1 The cost of the promotion and implementation of the Order will be met from the developer's £3,000 contribution.

7. Impact Assessments

7.1 There are no impacts in terms of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The proposal has been prepared by Havant Borough Council to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector to facilitate the redevelopment of 49 Bedhampton Hill. However, there is a need for the on-street parking in the area to be monitored and if it is found to compromise highway user safety that a further extension to the Traffic Regulation Order be promoted, following consultation with the Police, to ensure that all on-street parking in the vicinity does not compromise highway user safety.

1473Rpt/MS