19

North Somerset Council

REPORT TO THE Council

Date of Meeting: 22 november 2005

Subject of Report: Petitions to 27 september Council Meeting-Development and Environment Directorate Matters

Town or parish: Various

Officer presenting: David Turner Director of Development and Environment

Key Decision: No

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the report is noted

2. That members intending to submit petitions to Council relating to planning applications provide a copy of the petition to the Development Control Manager as soon as they are in possession of the petition in order that it may be registered and taken into account at the earliest possible stage in the planning process

1. Summary of Report

The purpose of this report is to update the Council on actions taken on petitions received by the Council at its meeting on 27 September and referred to the Executive Member Strategic Planning or the Director of Development and Environment. There were no petitions referred to the Development and Environment Directorate from the 18 October Council meeting.

2. Policy

Council Aims of Protecting and Improving the Environment and Ensuring Continuous Improvement are relevant.

3. Details

At the 27 September meeting four petitions were presented to the Council:

Min. No.	Person presenting	Subject of Petition	Action Taken
COU 79	Mr Jolly on behalf of Portishead Traffic Action Group	Mr. Jolly presented two petitions. One signed by 10 people supported the new traffic light scheme in Portishead. The second signed by 4,917 people was in the following terms: I am unable to vote on 8th September 2005, but I do support the following petition statements: · the new traffic lights are causing traffic chaos in Portishead · the traffic lights should be removed in favour of a roundabout scheme · residents want the rail link to Bristol to be re-opened · residents want to be kept advised on this, or any other developments that affect them, through quarterly reports in the pages of the Mercury.”	Councillor Burden, the then Executive Member for Strategic Planning, acknowledged the concern in Portishead and indicated that he would request Councillor Ap Rees, the Chairman of the Strategic Planning and Economic Development Policy and Scrutiny Panel, to hold a local meeting. At its meeting on 31 October the Strategic Planning and Economic Development Policy and Scrutiny Panel agreed to hold a meeting in Portishead as early as possible to scrutinise and review the new traffic scheme. Public notice will be given of this meeting
COU 80	Councillor Duck on behalf of residents and users of Easton in Gordano Parish	Councillor Duck presented a petition that was in the following terms: “We the undersigned residents and road users of the Parish are concerned that whilst petitions have been presented to North Somerset Council in the past two years regarding aspects of Road Safety in our parish, no action has been taken by the District Council to date. Neither are the two schemes included in the ‘Local Transport Implementation Plan for 2005/2006.’ We are concerned that no notice has been taken of our previous petitions and further Petition the Highway Authority of North Somerset to improve road safety in our parish by fulfilling the requests of our previous petitions.” The Chairman referred the petition to Councillor Burden, the then Executive Member for Strategic Planning.	The previous petitions referred to were: 1. Council meeting 25 March 2003 Cou 150: “Road safety St Georges Hill Easton in Gordano /Junction A369.” This sought action to improve road safety at the junction by removing hatching and installing traffic lights. During 2002 a road safety scheme was implemented on the A369 between junction 19 and Markham Farm. At the time the petition was presented further modifications were made to reduce the length of the hatching at the junction. Since the hatching was amended there have not been any accidents at this junction and it is considered that purely on safety grounds the installation of traffic lights is not justified. However as part of the Joint Local Transport Plan there is a major scheme bid for a showcase bus route along the A369 that includes a proposal to signalise this junction 2. Council meeting 27 July 2004 Cou 6: “Provision of Pedestrian Crossing at Heywood Road / Baltic Place, Pill.” The petition presented by Councillor Parker sought the installation of a Zebra crossing to replace a vacant school crossing patrol position. As there have been no pedestrian casualties in the last three years local safety scheme funding is not available. However the North Area Committee has recommended to the Executive Member Strategic Planning that the scheme be funded from its “Unallocated S106 Developer Contributions Budget”. Councillor Crockford-Hawley the Executive Member – Strategic Planning has agreed to this and the scheme will be included in the capital works programme and carried out in due course. Councillor Duck has been advised of the action taken in a letter from Councillor Burden
Cou 81 Cou 82	Councillor Mrs Willis on behalf of 221 local residents of Spring Hill, Upper Bristol Road and Baytree Road. Weston-super-Mare	Councillor Mrs. Willis presented two petitions that were in the following terms: 1. “We the undersigned; are opposed to the proposal of a mobile phone mast for video phones services; being installed in Spring Hill cul-de-sac: Milton.” 2. “Petition against erecting of mobile phone mast by 3G in Spring Hill Cul De Sac Planning No. 05/P/2252/PDT.” The petitions were also supported by Councillors Mrs. Brand and Mrs. Gosden. Councillor Mrs. Willis made a statement in respect of the petition. The Chairman referred the petition to the Director of Development and Environment.	The petitions were reported to the West Area Committee at its meeting on 18 October 2005 when it considered application 05/P/2252/PDT. The West Area Committee decided to refuse permission for the erection of the mast for the reason: “The proposed monopole would be sited in a prominent position within the street scene at the junction between Baytree Road and Upper Bristol Road. Its design in relation to other street furniture in the area and the residential scale of adjacent buildings will detract from the street scene and harm visual amenity in the area. As such the proposal will be contrary to Policy CF/5 of the North Somerset Local Plan and CF/5 of the North Somerset Replacement Plan.”

4. Consultation

The Executive Member for Strategic Planning was consulted on matters relating to his portfolio

5. Financial Implications

None

6. Equality Implications

It is important that petitions presented to the Council are effectively handled and appropriate action taken. The report seeks to achieve this.

7. Corporate Implications

None

8. Options considered

None

Author

Richard Ashley

Development and Environment Directorate

Tel. 01934 634825

Background Papers

1. Petitions received by the Council on 27 September 2005 referred to above.

2. Letter from Councillor Burden to Councillor Duck regarding Road Safety Petition-Easton in Gordano Parish.