Agenda item

The committee received a reserved matters application for proposed road junction of site access road with Babraham Road, and initial section of access road, including additional details required under condition 28 of the outline planning permission (06/0795/OUT).

 

The committee received the amendment sheet and noted the following updates:

 

Additional representations received

 

Letter received from 19 Babraham Road stating “We understand that the latest proposal is little different to the original proposal which had several deficiencies in particular with respect to safety. We wish to make clear our disapproval for this scheme. Babraham Road is already an extremely busy road as the traffic surveys that have carried out clearly show. To add to this traffic will cause further congestion. The scheme appears to be impractical and will cause unnecessary disruption to an already congested road.”

 

Letter received from 18 Greenlands stating  “We are Concerned about increase in noise and disturbance along Greenlands – there is of course constant parking day and night creating difficulties for disabled residents. Recently sewage problems were resolved. Will they start again?”

 

The Principal Planner confirmed that Cam Sight had also expressed concern over gradients on the site. It was noted that these concerns had been addressed in the revised drawings as circulated.

 

Public Speakers

 

The committee received five public speakers.

 

Dr Silverston

 

Dr Silverston spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points:

 

        i.            Despite assurances from Officer’s at the last meeting the Inspector had upheld the view of the committee that the junction was unsafe.

      ii.            Expressed concern about the current location and design of the junction and felt that it would be unsafe for footway and cycleway users.

    iii.            Suggested that alternative locations for the junction should be looked at.

 

 

Mr Rutherford

Mr Rutherford spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points:

 

        i.            Expressed concern about the late circulation of the revised drawings.

      ii.            Expressed concern regarding the gradients on the site and the safety issues this raised for wheelchair users.

    iii.            Urged the committee not to discharge Condition 28.

 

Mr Carroll

 

Mr Carroll spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points:

 

        i.            Expressed concern about the safety of the junction and compared it to other unsafe junctions in the City.

      ii.            Highlighted examples of good practice relating to junction design across the City.

    iii.            Expressed concern regarding the lack of an escape lane.

 

Mr Woodburn

 

Mr Woodburn spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points:

 

        i.            Expressed concern about the shared use pavements and the safety issues this may cause.

      ii.            Felt that cycle pavements cause conflict and would be out of place in a new housing development. These were also only half the width of the minimum standards.

    iii.            Felt that the junction went against statements in the Cambridge Local Plan.

   iv.            Highlighted potential safety issues for the school children using this junction.

 

Jenny Page

 

The Applicants Agent spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor Swanson

 

Councillor Swanson in her capacity as Ward Councillor for Queen Edith’s spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points:

 

        i.            Welcomed some aspects of the Inspectors ruling but still had concerns about the safety of the junction.

      ii.            Highlighted the need to meet national standards and provide a high quality development for the City of Cambridge.

    iii.            Suggested that alternative locations for the junction be looked at.

 

 

In response to the concerns raised the Case Officer confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Concerns regarding gradients had been taken on board by the applicant and addressed through the revised drawings.

      ii.            The appeal process had been undertaken by an Inspector with previous experience in highways and engineering.

    iii.            The Inspector had made site visits during peak traffic times.

   iv.            Whilst comparisons could be drawn with similar junctions across the City, processes and good practice had evolved over recent years.

     v.            The location of the junction had been approved and the reserved matters application was simply to agree the specific detail.

 

Members of the committee made the following comments:

 

        i.            Expressed continued concern regarding gradients and the late submission of the revised drawings to address the issue. The Case Officer apologised but confirmed that the information had been received after publication of the agenda. The Highways Officer confirmed that the revised drawings met County Council design criteria and recognised national guidelines.

      ii.            Questioned whether the concerns raised by Cam Sight and the Disability Access Officer had been fully addressed by the revised drawings. The Case Officer confirmed that, as the gradients now met the required standards, the concerns had been addressed.

    iii.            Expressed concern regarding queuing traffic during peak times and asked for confirmation of the stopping distance for a vehicle at 30mph. The Highways Officer confirmed a stopping distance of 43 metres and noted that the design of the junction fully took this into account.

   iv.            Expressed concern that the combined gradient of the pavement and the roadway would be unsafe for wheelchair users. The Highways Officer confirmed that that the combined gradient would not exceed the recommended standards.

     v.            Expressed concern that the safety issues raised at the previous meeting had not been fully addressed.

   vi.            Expressed concern that accessing existing driveways near to the proposed junction would cause safety issues.

 

Resolved (by 4 votes to 5) to reject the Officer recommendation to approve the application.

 

The committee adjourned at 11.45am and re-convened at 12.05pm.  

 

Resolved (by 5 votes to 2) to refuse the application contrary to the Officer recommendations for the following reason:

 

The local planning authority is not satisfied that the scheme as proposed is safe for all users of the junction and is unable to discharge condition 28.  It has not been demonstrated that the proposed gradients would be safe for users of the combined cyclepath and pavement, and there are concerns  about the relationship between the proposed access and potential conflicts with 6B Babraham Road and  the width of the proposed combined cyclepath and pavement is less than advised in national guidance resulting in facilities that fail to meet the requirements of Cambridge Local Plan Policy 8/4.