Agenda item

A major outline application for a residential development for up to 60 dwellings. [Skelton, Rawcliffe and Clifton Without Ward].

Consideration was given to a major outline application for a residential development for up to 60 dwellings.

The application was deferred from January’s Planning Committee due to Members having concerns about the pedestrian crossing arrangements over the A19 and had been brought back to the committee following further work by the agent on the road layout.

Philip Butler spoke on behalf of Skelton Village Trust. He advised that the trust supported the scheme but advised that it is vital that residents are able to cross safely to access Skelton Village. Various agencies, including the Police had commented on the matter since the last meeting and it now appeared that an island 87m 11m wide island with narrow carriageways on either side was to be the preferred option. In his opinion a pedestrian crossing in conjunction with a speed limit reduction was the best option.

Sophie Taylor spoke as the agent on behalf of the applicant. She advised that the site had been vacant since 2012 and following no interest in the site for economic development, the application for residential use had been put forward to the Council. The site would contribute towards affordable housing targets. The application had been made in consultation with technical and legal experts.

Matthew Cleggett spoke on behalf of the applicant to advise that a technical note had been produced which advised on the suitability of various styles of crossings at the location. He advised that a signalised pedestrian crossing in this location would be dangerous.

Councillor Watt spoke on behalf of Skelton Parish Council. He advised that the Parish Council and residents support the development of the site but still have concerns regarding the A19 crossing. He referred to North Yorkshire Police’s attendance at a recent Parish Council meeting at which they continued to express concerns about the lack of an appropriate crossing and asked that should the application be approved, the crossing is looked at again before the reserved matters application comes forward.

Members queried the work undertaken since January’s Planning Committee on the issue of the A19 crossing. Officers confirmed that further work had identified that the most suitable solution would be to alter the environment around the site access and Fairfield’s Road junctions and enhance the existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossing facilities including:

(a) Removal of the acceleration/deceleration lanes into Fairfield Drive which will enable the alignment of the A19 to be altered and carriageway width reduced to assist in lowering vehicle speeds. Physical measures such as these are more effective in restraining vehicle speeds than the use of/setting of unrealistic speed limits.

(b) Narrowing of the carriageway, which reduces the crossing distance for pedestrians.

(c) Provision of a sole crossing point, on the strongest desire line.

(d) Providing a widened refuge island, which gives more space for pedestrians away from live traffic.

Members entered debate and made the following points:

·        It was acknowledged that the housing development was welcomed by the local community and the advice of the highways officers and traffic consultant should be taken on board.

·        It was unreasonable to expect the applicant to provide a bridge or underpass due to cost.

·        Some Members still did not agree with the road crossing measures being proposed and considered the road to be too dangerous without a signalised crossing.

·        Following discussion, members asked that Officers and the applicant look at planting that enables visibility, the width of the bus lay-by, a 40mph speed restriction, facilities for cyclists and a stage 1 audit.

Resolved:           That the application be approved subject to the section 106 agreement.

Reason:              The proposed A19 road layout complies with transport  guidance and provides a significant change in street scene for both pedestrians and vehicles, providing a safer crossing environment. This includes the reduction of the crossing width from 18.5m to two 3.2m crossing widths. That current guidance considers the installation of a signal controlled crossing on Shipton Road adjacent to the proposed development to be unsuitable.

                             The proposed development of the brownfield site for residential development is considered to be acceptable in principle. The submitted additional information is considered to demonstrate why a signalised pedestrian crossing for low level of pedestrian activity and irregular periods of use is not justified in this location, and confirms that the proposed highway network improvements are the most appropriate means of achieving a safer crossing environment . The proposal  is considered acceptable subject to the completion and signing of a Section 106 agreement covering education contribution, open space, affordable housing, and highway works.