The Chairman introduced the next application, number 143815, outline planning application for the erection of up to 4no. dwellings with access to be considered and not reserved for subsequent applications - resubmission of 141429, on land to South of Clixby Lane Grasby. The Senior Development Management Officer informed the Committee that additional comments had been received since the publication of the report, mainly making the same points as previously covered in the report, and there was a correction to the report that the plan should have been dated as November not December. Additionally, he drew Members’ attention to conditions four and nine of the report.
The Chairman stated there were several registered speakers, some of whom had submitted statements. He invited the Democratic Services Officer to read aloud the first statement from Grasby Parish Council. The following statement was read.
“Planning Application for this site was turned down on 15th Oct 2020. An Appeal was also denied. The main issue for both decisions was the effect on Clixby Lane.
The original denial said ‘the development would not contribute towards a safe transport network for pedestrians or vehicular movement when considering the impact on Clixby Lane and surrounding highway network, it fails to maximise pedestrian permeability and avoid barriers to movement through careful consideration of street layouts and access routes. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 13 and Policy LP26 of CLLP and provisions of NPPF’
So I ask ‘What has changed?’
The Appeal denial supported the Planning Committee’s decision.
‘Main Issue is the effect of the development on highway safety’
The reasons are given as the narrowness of Clixby Lane, need for vehicles to reverse out of the Lane, no separate footpaths and Clixby Lane is a Public Foot Path used by hikers, Duke of Edinburgh groups, schools. The Planning Inspector said ‘I conclude that the proposed development would compromise highway safety for users, causing harm. This would conflict with Policies LP13 and LP26 of CLLP where these policies seek to ensure that development provides well designed, safe and convenient access for all. It would also conflict with NPPF ie that safe and suitable access to sites can be achieved for all users.’
So I ask again ‘What has changed?’
Clixby Lane hasn’t got any wider, it is not any less used by walkers, visibility down Clixby Lane hasn’t improved. It is still the Viking Way.
The number of properties has been reduced by 1 but the Planning Inspector contradicted the Appellants claim that 5 properties would have little impact on the number of vehicles on Clixby Lane and thought there would be noticeably more traffic. The new application would reduce this by 20% - an unknown number of vehicles.
The Inspector addressed the problem of no turning place for vehicles. A lay by is proposed near the far corner of the field on Clixby Lane. The Lane is 2.8 metres wide, and the verge there is 2.3 metres wide. This is not enough for anything other ... view the full minutes text for item 86