Plans for new Tesco Express near Halesowen rejected after concerns over traffic congestion
Plans for a new Tesco Express and retail centre near Halesowen have been rejected following concerns about traffic congestion.
Watch more of our videos on ShotsTV.com
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
Dudley Council has delivered its verdict on a proposal to convert a former furniture shop at the junction of Mucklow Hill and Long Lane into five units including the Tesco, a food retail unit, a veterinary surgery, a dental surgery and a tanning salon.
The planning application attracted more than 80 letters of objection from residents and councillors.
Cllr Hilary Bills said: “The traffic island outside this property is the junction of four very busy roads.
“An obstruction in the approach or leaving this island impacts all four roads.
“Recently there were minor road works opposite the Long Lane access to this site and it caused huge traffic disruption.
“To access this site as a pedestrian will be very difficult owing to the heavy traffic at all four of the junctions. There is no reasonable crossing point currently and it looks like none are planned.”
A statement from Bradley Stankler Planning in support of the application said a transport statement submitted with the application demonstrated there was an acceptable level of access to the proposed development for all modes of transport and it was appropriate for existing transport infrastructure.
Planning officers at the council however found the application fell short on traffic, in a report they said: “The proposal also failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not give rise to road safety issues or that the development would not have detrimental impacts on the free flow of the highway network.”
Dudley head of planning, Carl Mellor, found the development could cause road safety issues and there was insufficient parking provision at the site which would impact on streets close to the development.
Mr Mellor added: “The proposed substation by virtue of its scale, design and sitting forward of the building line would result in an incongruous and discordant addition, detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene along Long Lane and would fail to respect the character and appearance of the non-designated heritage asset.”
