"Visibility Splays" as part of planning permission...

[Flat-6]

Afternoon all, first post in this bit of the forum!

Right, so basically I'm setting up a sports club, in a field.

As part of the planning permission (yes its required, as i'll be way over the 28-day rule) I have been asked to submit "Visibility splays" for the access.

Has anyone had to do this? as I'm struggling to figure out quite how to deal with the situation on paper.
Basically you are supposed to measure out 215m from the access point either way and have direct line of sight to see oncoming cars at that distance.
Now in my case this is impossible in both directions: one way there is a traffic island about 100m away, which you CAN see clearly: I think that's OK. The other way the road turns very slightly about 150m away meaning the hedge is in the way (in the distance)

There's nothing I can do about the position of the access or the shape of the roads... So in essence it would be completely impossible to comply with this 215m splay - will the council accept the use of a secondary safety precautions such as warning signage on game days? Or am I stuffed?
Its not like I'm building a supermarket, I'd only expect 40 cars a week...

[Flat-6]

Correct yes, its the access to the field that comes out onto an NSL road - I've sat and watched traffic and its going full speed annoyingly. Although stuff from the one side should be (thinking about) slowing for the roundabout.

Although I fear it may be 4.5m x 215, as it could be classed as commercial (?)
You can literally see f-all from 4.5m into the entrance!! (trees)
Where the entrance is is literally the single only point where it could be (it's been there for years, and is tarmac'ed) due to the shape and location of the field.

I'm waiting for a reply from the highways dept of Leicester council.

Thanks for the offer of help, I may do that!

[Flat-6]

On the positive side the entrance is directly opposite a turn to a small lane, so anyone familiar with the road could well already be expecting the possibility of a car pulling out at that position....

[Flat-6]

Dr Murdoch said:

Trouble is the Council will take the view of those who may be unfamiliar with the road (quite rightly imo).

I assume the hedging is on 3rd party land? If not then then this can be trimmed and maintained (it won't be maintained, but in this instance thats not the point)

I doubt that you would be able to convince the Council to lower the speed restriction (thus reduce visibility requirements), however it has been known and we're recently undertaken a few projects where this has been agreed.

If you get traffic count / speed data indicating that speeds are low, or lower than 60mph then you could have an argument.

The hedge to the one side is on the land-owner's land so something could be done (Im paying him a lot more than the agricultural rate so he'll want the planning to go through!!! However it would still be impossible to see 215m due to the slight curvature of the road.
On the other side towards the roundabout the trees that are in the way are on Highways land (the verge) - so I would probably not be allowed to trim them even for safety's sake.

I'll post some drivers'-eye photos later when i get home.

[Flat-6]

Thanks all :-D
Really wasn't expecting this much of a response!!!!

(I've PM/Emailed Swervin_Mervin)

This is the CURRENT state of the driver's view - obviously it's quite over grown, the right-hand view could be made MUCH better by cutting that tree back a bit, that's on Highway's land. To the Left you actually CAN see traffic (just) at 215m.

However these are from a real car, not the arbitrary 2.4 / 4.5m.

Edited by Flat-6 on Wednesday 26th July 18:17

[Flat-6]

You have a very valid point and certainly worth thinking about!

However I will say this is likely to be more of an issue with people turning OUT in-front of a fast moving car than turning in.

[Flat-6]

Correct, I have a good budget for the field, buildings, insurance, etc etc etc, but zero budget for this - and I realise that anything do do with road infrastructure is an excessively over-priced money pit.

I didn't see this coming at all (Oh, that's a pun!), and it was only mentioned by the planning officer AFTER submitting and paying for the application.

Aaaanyway i'll see what we can do...

[Flat-6]

Equus said:

Have you had an Architect involved? Not that it will help you any, but I'd be having very stern words with them, if you have. This is basic and fundamental stuff from a design feasibility perspective, and should have been picked up at an early stage.

Similarly, if you sought formal pre-application advice from the Planners, they should have picked it up as an issue for consideration straight away - but again not much you can do about it at this juncture, other than have a good grumble at them

No, there will be simply a big shed and some shelters.

IF it is turned down on this, I will take it up with them that it wasn't mentioned during pre-application.

I'm sure we can come to some arrangement, its not extremely bad vision when you are actually on-site, its just a total fail when you actually draw it out on a map. Nor is it like a housing estate where people are coming and going all day and night, its probably going to see 40 cars a week over 2 days and only at arrival and leaving times.

[Flat-6]

I think its going to be do-able without any road alterations, its just a bit of give-n-take I think.

[Flat-6]

This angle suggests that if it comes to it, those 2 overgrown trees could come down.
The land owner owns both fields (and another few thousand acres)

Basically it's his problem (I am in contact) now as the lease agreement is based on getting planning approval.

[Flat-6]

I am trying to start a small local sports club in a field.
I have Zero budget for this stuff - if it's rejected instead of conditional acceptance, i'll dump the complete project.

Its that simple.

[Flat-6]

^^^^ True!!!!!

They are scabby over-grown weed-trees.

[Flat-6]

Thanks Mervin :-)

I'm glad to hear there is some hope, All seemed doom and gloom last night...!!
OK that makes sense, I assume the 4.5m "Commercial" offset was more designed for places such as supermarkets and trading estates etc...

I'm currently in contact with the council and land owner so im sure we can all come to a satisfactory and above all SAFE agreement.

[Flat-6]

Thanks for the excellent help everyone, just posted here on the off-chance - very surprised by the response!!!!

Email received Swervin' - will go over it when I get home.

[Flat-6]

A question that cropped up today while creating a very long-winded access statement... (needs a lot of trimming!!):

What is the situation where overgrown trees/vegetation on HIGHWAYS land are blocking the visibility splay of a proposed access?

Who has responsibility to make that work?
Does the developer need to buy the verge & trees just to cut them back, or is Highways obliged to cut them back to allow a safe view?

[Flat-6]

Update:
Full planning granted.

:-D