The Strand can’t handle any more traffic, says tribunal
AN APPEAL to try to create nine parking spaces at the back of a Hauteville property was dismissed after an independent tribunal ruled that The Strand was fundamentally unsuitable for traffic.
Mr T. Letten had applied to carry out the work, but it was rejected by the planners on the grounds that a roadside granite wall would be demolished and a sliding wooden gate installed, which would not fit with the area.
At the tribunal, presiding member Jonathan King agreed that the installation of the gate would break up the granite wall and detract from the area’s character.
But the tribunal also raised serious concerns about the spaces generating more traffic on the narrow, two-way street.
‘We take the view that, principally owing to its narrowness and lack of footpaths and passing places, The Strand is fundamentally unsuitable for motor traffic,’ Mr King wrote in the decision notice.
‘Moreover, its junction with Cliff Street is very difficult to negotiate with a motor vehicle without encroaching on the pavement. For these reasons, development such as that proposed which would give rise to additional traffic should not be encouraged.’
He noted that other properties did have vehicle access from the street.
‘Nonetheless, its unsuitability is demonstrated by its designation as a prohibited street and the need to impose the existing access restrictions,’ he said.
‘The proposed development would add periodic movements from up to nine additional vehicles. That is not a large number in absolute terms, but we consider it to be significant relative to the acknowledged inadequacies of the street.’
Traffic & Highway Services did raise road safety concerns in the original rejection, but suggested ways these would be mitigated by the light traffic movements.
Mr King said the tribunal disagreed with this and said that the rationale misunderstood the concept of mitigation.
‘Although the potential for traffic conflict or vehicular/pedestrian conflict may be lower on The Strand than on a more heavily trafficked highway, the mere fact that present traffic flows are light would do nothing to lessen the increased risk that would be brought about by the proposed development,’ he said.
‘Of particular concern is the safety of pedestrians and cyclists who would not be as readily visible to the drivers of cars emerging from the proposed gateway.
‘Moreover, we are of the opinion that the introduction of additional traffic, combined with the resultant inevitable increase in reversing and other manoeuvres, would further harm the quiet character of this street and its attractiveness for pedestrians and cyclists.’
He said he did understand that many island roads were narrow and had poor visibility and it was not always possible to create ideal road design.
‘However, the fact that Guernsey drivers may commonly be obliged to drive on pavements, for example, is not a good reason to allow new development that would inevitably give rise to such highly undesirable practices.’
He added that the tribunal understood the lack of dedicated parking caused problems for the property’s residents but that did not outweigh the harm this development would have caused.
