Agenda item

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding an application for construction of a bypass for Botley, providing a connection from Station Hill (A334/A3051 junction) to Woodhouse Lane together with associated improvements/enabling works to Woodhouse Lane.

Committee considered a report from the Head of Strategic Planning regarding an application for the construction of Botley Bypass.

Committee were shown a location plan where the proposed bypass would be going, along with elevations and plans for road improvements along Woodhouse Lane. Detailed diagrams showed new junctions and road changes, along with uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.

Consultations and representations were summarised and issues included flood risks, displaced traffic, noise and lack of signalled crossings.

The Committee received five deputations on this item. Gail Johnson from the British Horse Society stated that they were supportive of the scheme, but wished for safer equestrian access, including that of controlled crossings. There were concerns regarding the amount of traffic and the speed of vehicles, making crossing the road potentially dangerous if there were no controlled crossings. Access to cycle ways and verges was considered important for being able to reach quieter roads and public rights of way.

            Councillor Eric Bodger from Curdridge Parish Council was strongly in favour of the scheme as the current route through Botley had seen many accidents, and the developments in Horton Heath were expected to make the traffic worse. Councillor Colin Mercer from Botley Parish Council stated that the majority of local residents were in strong favour of the scheme and it had been anticipated for a long time. The current pavements and the width of the road were felt dangerous for pedestrians, particularly with HGV lorries, of which there were approximately 500 movements per day.

            Heather Walmsley, Holly Wood and Rob Ward spoke on behalf of the applicant. The benefits of the bypass were summarised and it was confirmed that controlled crossings had not been taken into account as policy requirements had not been met, but were not ruled out for the future if considered necessary. There had been no objection from consultees on air quality grounds or effects to ecological sites.
            Finally, Hampshire County Councillor Rupert Kyrle addressed Committee in support of the proposals. He was hopeful that the bypass and reduction in through-traffic would improve access to the Botley centre and allow people to enjoy the historic village and what it had to offer.

During questions of the deputations, the following points were clarified:

• At the moment horses cross the road in one go, and a controlled crossing had been requested as part of the consultation.
• Installing a controlled crossing was not felt to be warranted for the number of users, and it was unsafe to install a crossing that is rarely used as traffic gets accustomed to ignoring it. It was also a priority that traffic is kept moving along the bypass. An independent audit process had confirmed that one was not needed at the moment.
• There would be minimal cost implications regardless of whether a crossing was installed now or in the future, and the County Council would likely pay for it in either circumstance.
• When considering whether controlled crossings are necessary, only existing and committed developments (those benefitting from planning permission) can be considered as part of the analysis.
  
  

During questions of the officer, the following points were clarified:

• Night works listed under Condition 2 are in exceptional circumstances only, and the Condition will be  amended to reflect this.
• The beneficial impact of the bypass was listed as ‘moderate’ for local businesses, but in reality this was difficult to quantify and could be more.

In debate, Members agreed that it was a well designed application. Some of the Committee was in agreement that controlled crossings were not needed at this stage and it was important to not set a precedent of pre-empting demand..

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was GRANTED subject to the conditions listed in integral appendix B, additional conditions contained within the Update Report, the amendment to Condition 2 and any additional conditions or amendments as necessary following receipt of final consultation responses.

Voting:
Favour: 13 (unanimous)