Chipstead Village

Surrey

21/02795/S73 – McCarthy & Stone development Outwood Lane


This application seeks removal of condition 14 of Permission 19/02583/S73 - ie. the proposed extended footway, and the proposed pedestrian crossing facility comprising a central refuge island, dropped kerbs, tactile paving, and associated road markings and carriageway widening, on Outwood Lane. Awaiting decision.


The CRA object to this application to remove a condition that was set by the Inspector at the appeal as being necessary for the planning permission to be granted.

It has been determined by the Highways Authority that the widening of Outwood Lane and the pedestrian refuge that were included in the original permission and through every variation to the development plans since, would cause danger to other highway users and therefore should be removed.

However, this condition was included as a safety measure for pedestrians and with its removal there are no other safety measures for pedestrians being considered or installed.

As the safety of the residents and other pedestrians was said to be of paramount importance to the developer and that is why these features were included, that there should be urgent consideration given to what other measures can be installed as a replacement to provide a safe refuge for pedestrians trying to cross this very busy road.

A major argument in the original application was that those who would live in the development would be giving up their cars; this was used as the justification for the limited parking provision on site. Therefore, if most residents would have no car and be leaving the development on foot, they would need to cross this busy road but now without any road features to protect their safety. Crossing the road is essential for anyone walking as there is no pavement on the development side of Outwood Lane to allow people to walk to, what was described in the design statement for this development as, the extensive village amenities and local public transport facilities.

If permission was to be granted to remove this condition, then it is essential that some alternative form of safety measure is implemented to protect pedestrians.


Comments (0)


Add a Comment





Allowed tags: <b><i><br>Add a new comment: