Sir,
Regarding the provision of new access, access track and drainage pond at Clayford Road.
Further to the letter in the Tenby Observer on September 3, expressing dissatisfaction with interaction with this authority's highways officers regarding a recent application, the following is noted.
As a background to the highways authority's role in the planning process, the highways authority is a statutory consultee on planning applications where there may be an impact on the public highway. When we are consulted on applications such as this one, a site inspection is carried out and recommendations are passed to the planning authority for their consideration.
There are perceived to be existing problems surrounding the existing use of the lane, which this application sought to address. It was our view that any consent would not have exacerbated the situation as there was no change of use to the land, therefore an existing access being improved or relocated to a location where better visibility and manoeuvrability could be achieved appeared to be considered a benefit. This existing access, which is the only approved access to the owned land, cannot be improved.
Our assessment indicated that the access proposed was at a location where good visibility can be achieved in each direction without the need for the loss of long lengths of hedge bank or the loss of the stone outbuilding. The location of the access is where any vehicle drivers turning in from the west can have full advance visibility before doing so. The layout includes good radii for vehicle manoeuvring off the highway.
We did not respond to the letter issued to us because no question was posed; the letter was raising comment about the application. Soon after receipt of the letter, an officer called the writer, where the position regarding the consultation response from the office was discussed. During this conversation, a further site visit was requested by the writer.
However, although we are sorry if it was felt this was unjustly turned down, whilst an application is live, if we were to meet on site then that should be done with the applicant and development control officer also present to ensure impartiality and that all matters could have been covered and, if possible, resolved.
The application has now been refused, but we have confirmed to the writer that if they feel a site meeting would be useful to go through these points, an officer will be happy to attend.
Clr. Jamie Adams.
Cabinet member for highways and planning.