Reference number: 16/507379
One further representation has been received, being from a previous objector (neighbour) and seeks to address the recent KCC Highways’ additional comments. The further neighbour comments are as follows:
· The KCC confirm 'Warmlake Crossroads' as being a crash site. Given the importance, it would be in the Planning Dept. interest to check the distance (130m) from the crash site, quoted by the KCC.
· Having worked on Warmlake Estate for over 12 years, I can confirm there are usually a couple (sometimes more) of accidents / crashes each year - in and around Warmlake Crossroads. May I ask when was the last time the KCC crash records were updated? The countless traffic delays caused by this stretch of road are matter of file, public and police record as well as local knowledge.
· The KCC have been saying they have 'remedial measures planned for this site' for quite some time and yet, nothing has been done. This application is just 15m from the new entrance and exit site currently building a further 10 new properties (up to 20 cars a day) on the opposite side of the busy A274. Why are the Planning Dept not taking this fact in to consideration?
KCC Highways has given their opinion on this application on two occasions, and whilst the Highways Authority does not agree with the objections raised by the local residents and PC they are entitled to come to an alternative view. In addition, KCC Highways are aware of the appeal permission at The Oaks and will have taken this in to account when reaching their view.
In terms of the distance of the site from the Warmlake crossroads, I can confirm that the distance between the new access and the crossroads is 130m as stated by KCC. The inherent complexities of a historic crossroads junction, which have resulted in the Warmlake Crossroads being identified as a crash remediation site, cannot be said to extend such a distance up the highway and, indeed, the crossroads is not visible from the application site, or from the opposite side of the road from the site. As such, it is right that KCC are assessing the application on the crash history in close proximity to the site, i.e. assessing it on its own merits.
I do not therefore consider the further objection to override my previous conclusions.
RECOMMENDATION REMAINS UNCHANGED