Bath & North East Somerset Council
Cllr Charles Gerrish, Cabinet Member for Customer Services
On or after 6th September 2008
Proposed Loading Bay and Associated Restrictions, Bathwick Hill - Consideration of Objections.
EXECUTIVE FORWARD PLAN REFERENCE:
AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM
List of attachments to this report:
Appendix 1: Plan of Proposals
Appendix 2: Schedule of Objections
1 THE ISSUE
1.1 This report considers objections received in response to public advertisement of the proposed loading bay and associated restrictions in the vicinity of the Canal bridge.
The Cabinet Member is asked to agree that:
2.1 The Scheme be implemented substantially as proposed, but with a loading bay of 12.0m length instead of the 14.0m proposed.
2.2 The objectors be informed accordingly
3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 The cost of introducing the loading bay and restrictions is being met by the developer, Tesco.
4 CORPORATE PRIORITIES
- Building communities where people feel safe and secure
- Promoting the independence of older people
- Sustainable growth
5 THE REPORT
5.1 In August 2006 a planning application was received from Tesco to open a Tesco Express store at the former John Tallis Motors site at Bathwick Hill. Following a Planning Committee resolution to refuse the application, an appeal was lodged which was heard through Public Inquiry in Spring 2007. At that time the Inspector upheld the appeal on a number of conditions, one of which was that a loading bay be provided outside the store. As a result Bath & North East Somerset promoted a Traffic Regulation Order to allow introduction of a loading bay, along with modified waiting and loading restrictions.
5.3 The TRO proposal was publicly advertised from 15th May to 5th June (Appendix 1 shows the proposals). Three letters of objection and one email were received, details of which are summarised, and addressed, in the Schedule of Objections (Appendix 2). In general, the objectors suggest that the loading bay cannot be accommodated within the available road width and will impact adversely on road safety. Site measurements have since established that a loading bay 12.0m long (i.e. 2.0m less than as originally proposed) can be introduced which will both retain a safe road width within the downhill running lane, and also allow safe access to/egress from the parking area to the rear of Georges House. Any vehicle which cannot be entirely accommodated within the loading bay will either obstruct the downhill running lane, and/or the parking area access road, however Tesco have indicated that they propose to use a 10.5m long vehicle for deliveries to this store. The single vehicle parking space adjacent to the Georges House rear access will be obstructed by a vehicle in the loading bay, however no objections have been received on this account.
5.4 It should be noted that, with a large vehicle in the loading bay, and vehicles parked in the existing parking bays on the other side of the road, it may not be possible for two large vehicles such as bendy buses to pass each other, however in practical terms this is not considered a problem, as one or both vehicles will stop. Likewise it is anticipated that large vehicles may at times cross or over-run the centre line and/or hatching, to pass parked vehicles, as they do at present, when there is no oncoming traffic. Such practice is normal and within the law. It should also be noted that vehicles of any size can currently park on the existing waiting restrictions quite legally so long as they are loading or unloading, therefore the proposed loading bay is advantageous in that it suggests a vehicle 12.0m or less in length is appropriate.
6 RISK MANAGEMENT
6.1 The report author and Cabinet member have fully reviewed the risk assessment related to the issue and recommendations, in compliance with the Council's decision making risk management guidance.
7.1 An Equalities Impact Assessment has not been carried out as there are no Equality issues.
8.1 It is considered that a loading bay can be safely accommodated in the proposed location
9 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED
10.1 Ward Councillor; Cabinet member; Local Residents; Other Public Sector Bodies; Section 151 Finance Officer; Chief Executive; Monitoring Officer
10.2 Formal consultation letters were sent to local Councillors, Emergency Services and Bus operators. Public consultation took the statutory form of on-street notices or a notice in local press. Immediate frontagers were consulted by individual letter drop. This report has been circulated to the Chief Executive, Section 151 Officer and Monitoring Officer.
11 ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN REACHING THE DECISION
11.1 Social Inclusion; Customer Focus; Sustainability; Health & Safety;
12 ADVICE SOUGHT
12.1 The Council's Monitoring Officer (Council Solicitor) and Section 151 Officer (Strategic Director - Support Services) have had the opportunity to input to this report and have cleared it for publication.
Nick Jeanes 01225 39 4256
(i) Letters of objection received in response to public advertisement of the proposals
(ii) Inspector's Report from Public Inquiry Spring 2007
Please contact the report author if you need to access this report in an alternative format