Agenda item

Agenda item

123757/VO/2019 - 53 Barlow Moor Road Manchester M20 6TP - Didsbury West Ward

The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

 

Minutes:

This application was for the retention of access onto a classified road. The application site related to an installed dropped kerb within the pavement to the front of number 53 Barlow Moor Road located approximately 200 metres to the west of Didsbury District Centre.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application. He advised the Committee that the dropped-kerb was installed in November 2017 by the Council following a request by the owner of the property. As Barlow Moor Road was a classified road, planning permission was required for the formation, laying out and construction of a means of access to a highway. Following receipt of a complaint regarding the installation of the dropped kerb the Council’s Highway Services had now submitted a planning application to regularise the installation that had taken place.

 

The Committee was addressed by a local resident who objected to the application. He explained the history of the development and why he believed that the installation of the drop kerb had been done without consent. He referred to a decision by the Local Government Ombudsman that the Council had been at fault for allowing the installation of the drop kerb to go ahead. He explained his knowledge of the use of the pavement, having lived nearby for 33 years, and why the installation of the drop kerb had created a very dangerous situation with the space insufficient to safely park a vehicle without obstructing the footway, making it too narrow for a wheelchair to pass by safely. He explained why the drop kerb and parking ramp were contrary to the requirements of building regulations.

 

Councillor R Kilpatrick (Ward Councillor for Didsbury West) then addressed the Committee in objection to the application and referred to how busy Barlow Moor Road is and the prevalence of mobility issues amongst local residents. He too said the driveway was not large enough to park a vehicle safely and that Greater Manchester Police had had to get involved to deal with the obstructions that the parked vehicles had been causing.

 

Planning Officers were invited to respond to the concerns raised in objection to the application. It was commented that planning permission was not being sought for parking a car on a private driveway, just the installation of the dropped-kerb.

 

The Chair invited members of the Committee to comment on the application.

 

Members were concerned that the existence of the drop-kerb was encouraging the use of the space in front of the house as a vehicle park, and that was leading to obstructions of the walkway, as was evident in the photographs in the officer’s report. The obstructions and the change of slope in the pavement were therefore making the walkway less safe for pedestrians and were harmful to the accessibility of the neighbourhood. Members were especially concerns about older and less able people trying to use the walkway, impeded by the parked vehicles and the change in the slope of the path. 

 

Highways Officers advised the Committee that the concerns of Councillors were understood. He said that the site did present a difficult traffic situation and that the Highways service would not accept that a vehicle parked in front of the property should be able to overhang and partially block the footway. He stated that Highway Services had visited the site and were satisfied that an appropriately sized vehicle could park on the driveway without overhanging the pavement.

 

The members concluded that the application was detrimental to the safety of the public using the footway and requested that the Director of Planning bring a further report to the next meeting to address the concerns and with potential reasons for refusal.

 

Decision

 

The Committee is minded to refuse the application for the reasons that the proposed drop-kerb would impact on the safety of the public in using the footpath directly in front of the property. The committee agreed that the proposal was therefore in conflict with policies Policy SP1 - Spatial Principles and Policy DM1 - Development Management.

 

(The Director of Planning was requested to submit a report which addresses the concerns raised and whether there are reasons for refusal which could be sustained.)

 

Supporting documents: