| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Feb 2003 : Column 619—continued
2.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing the debate and on raising a matter that is of great importance to his constituents in Barrington road. As he rightly points out, road safety is among my responsibilities. If he was in the Chamber earlier, he will have noticed that I have other responsibilities, too.
The hon. Gentleman said that the case that he described was highway robbery. Had that been so, I can assure him that a legal remedy would already have been taken.
In the brief time that remains, it may be helpful if I highlight the law on these matters to show where the responsibility of the various bodies lies. An essential characteristic of a highway is that it is open to all members of the public, although it may not be open to all classes of traffic. An urban highway will usually comprise both the vehicular carriageway used by traffic and the footway. The carriageway and footway together form the highway. Part V of the Highways Act 1980 confers on highway authorities general and specific powers for improving highways, so a highway authority can undertake improvements in the highway boundary without the need for further authorisation. Changes in a highway's layout do not change its legal status as a public highway.
Of course people like to park their cars in front of their houses, but, sadly, there is no absolute right to do so. In older urban areas with terraced housing and little or no front garden, there is no scope for parking vehicles
off the road. Of course such areas were never designed with the car in mind. Although I have not seen the site to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I have seen the maps and it looks as though it is one of those areas. Parking problems in such areas have to be dealt with on a day-to-day basis by the local authorities responsible for traffic management and parking.Parliament has given local authorities powers to deal with those problems. As democratically accountable bodies, it is up to local authorities to decide how to use those powers to best advantage in their areas. The Government cannot and should not get involved in those detailed local issues. If we did so, the hon. Gentleman and his party might have something to say about that, as the Liberal Democrats say that they believe very much in devolving power to local government.
One driver of the need for changing existing highways is, of course, new development. New developments will inevitably generate additional traffic. It is essential that local planning authorities consider the impact of additional traffic on the existing highway network and identify possible needs for improvement. Where such a need is identified, the normal recourse is to seek a contribution from the developer to the costs of any improvements.
Developing a site may require formation or alteration of junctions to provide access. Visibility is, of course, an important safety consideration at junctions. All road users must have adequate visibility in each direction at junctions to see conflicting traffic movements in sufficient time, enabling them to make their manoeuvres safely.
The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman involves the formation of a new access to a housing development in his constituency. Subject to the final approval of the planning authority, it will result in the development of about one hectare of land that, as he said, has long been derelict. In principle, the proposed development sits four square with the Government's housing policy, as set out in planning policy guidance note 3. The hon. Gentleman is nodding in approval.
We want priority to be given to re-using brownfield sites in urban areas, bringing empty homes back into use and converting existing buildings, in preference to developing greenfield sites. We expect land for new housing to be used more efficiently through higher densities, and development to be focused where it is supported by good transport networks and services.
In this case, the proposal is to build 59 dwellings on about one hectare of land, which forms about half of a larger area of land to the rear of Bourne, Canterbury and Barrington roads in Colchester. The development would comprise two, three and four-bedroomed flats and maisonettes. The site is designated for residential development in both the adopted Colchester borough local plan and second deposit draft of the emerging replacement plan. The streets adjacent to the site comprise mainly Victorian and Edwardian terraced and semi-terraced houses, with the majority having no garaging or provision for off-road parking.
I understand that the only practicable access to the site that has been identified is off the eastern side of Barrington road. The developer has acquired the necessary strip of land between 26 and 28 Barrington
road to enable the access to Barrington road to be formed. As I have said, visibility at junctions is an important safety consideration. Ensuring that visibility is adequate is the responsibility of Essex county council—the local highway authority. It and the planning authority, Colchester borough council, have been in liaison on this issue. It has been concluded that the visibility splays required by the highway authority would be secured and protected either by an extension of the adjacent footway or other physical obstruction. A possible alternative may simply be to impose parking restrictions either side of the junction.I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has written a number of letters to Ministers urging intervention in this local planning matter. I know that his particular concern is about what he terms the appropriation of the highway in front of houses in Barrington road to create the visibility splays at the site access. He is also aggrieved at Colchester borough council's handling of the planning application. He has articulated those points strongly. In response to his representations, Colchester borough council was directed not to grant planning consent until the Deputy Prime Minister had decided whether the application was one that he should call in for his own determination, after a public inquiry. However, it was concluded that the application did not raise any land use planning issues that justified its being called in, and on 11 December last year the Government office for the east of England advised the borough council that it was free to determine the application as it saw fit.
The council is minded to approve the application, but I am told planning permission has not yet been granted because a legal agreement or planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, between the council and the applicant, has not yet been finalised. The agreement will secure, among other things, rights of vehicular access to rear gardens for properties in Barrington road. The planning permission will also be subject to a number of conditions. One of the proposed planning conditions deals specifically with the issue of provision of adequate visibility splays between the new access road and Barrington road. It requires a detailed scheme to be submitted to the local planning authority for approval showing how the 33 x 2.4 m visibility splays at the Barrington road access will be kept clear at all times. The scheme must be completed prior to occupation of any house built on the site.
In earlier contacts with the hon. Gentleman, it was thought by the Government office for the east of England that the works required to enable the development of the site to go ahead might necessitate a stopping-up order under section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Such orders are made by the Secretary of State for Transport. What is meant by a stopping-up order is an order authorising the removal
of all highway rights. The hon. Gentleman was advised that if such an order were required, there would first be an opportunity for local residents to object, and if objections could not be resolved, a public inquiry might be necessary. I explained the procedure to the hon. Gentleman in a written answer on 28 November last year.On 24 January, however, Colchester borough council, having taken the advice of its own highway staff and Essex county council, wrote to the hon. Gentleman informing him that as the part of Barrington road affected by the visibility splays will stay as highway, albeit footway instead of carriageway, no road closure or stopping-up order would be necessary. I see no reason to dissent from that view but ultimately it is for local authorities to make sure that they are properly exercising the powers given to them by Parliament. The fact is that the developer will not be appropriating the public highway for his own ends. Barrington road will remain a public highway albeit with possibly some alterations to its overall layout. The requirement to prevent the parking of vehicles in the vicinity of the junction in order to meet visibility requirements has been laid down by the highway authority, Essex county council.
The detail of how the requirement is to be met is still to be resolved. I would expect the two councils to consider the effect of the scheme on the ease of movement of traffic and the access to the school and residential properties south of the junction. Under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, a traffic authority is under a duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic.
I acknowledge that parking restrictions or a build-out of the footway may create parking problems for nearby residents of Barrington road, but this is a matter of the detailed design of a scheme. It is for Colchester borough council and Essex county council, together with the developer, to sort out rather than the Government. One hopes that, as democratically accountable bodies, the councils will have regard to the views of local residents. The residents' local councillors will have been able to make representations on their behalf when the council's planning committee considered the planning application.
Use of a physical build-out to prevent parking on either side of a junction is a tested technique of traffic management. There is nothing new in the issues raised by this case that suggests that there is a gap in the existing law that requires remedy. Legislation, as it stands, provides an adequate framework for resolving what are essentially detailed local planning and highway issues. Sorting them out is exactly why we elect local councils.
- Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |