A PLAN to build a ‘turntable’ driveway off one of the city’s busiest routes has been rejected by the council.
The move would have seen the driveway built off London Road in Worcester but the move was turned down by council planners over concerns it would add to traffic problems on the congested route.
A ‘solution’ to the council requesting that cars drive forward and not reserve onto London Road was a ‘turntable’ on the driveway that would spin a ‘small hatchback city car’ around so it could be driven off again.
READ MORE: Plan for 500-seat Scala Theatre in Worcester ditched for smaller venue
Highways officers at Worcestershire County Council had already objected to the plan before a ‘turntable’ was added saying the proposed driveway was not big enough.
But the county council’s highways department was still not convinced by the proposed fix, calling it ‘unviable’, and said the size of the driveway and the turntable did not meet the required size standard and would block traffic on an already congested road.
The council said the steep and bendy London Road already has dozens of parked cars which restrict visibility as well as cars waiting to turn onto Fort Royal Hill and it could not support a plan that would add to problems by allowing the driveway to be accessed by driving across a pavement.
READ MORE: New images show Worcester's Shrub Hill will change dramatically
The application by Michael Taylor also asked for permission to build a new wall separating the driveway with a wooden gate, build new steps and add a new automated gate at the front of the driveway instead of rebuilding a wall damaged when a fire engine reversed into it.
Mr Taylor had pointed to a similar plan that had been approved in Bath Road by the council in 2017 but planners still turned it down.
READ MORE: Care home to replace former Perdiswell Harvester in Worcester
The new home was built in London Road after being given the nod by planners in 2021.
As the new home was built next to 67 London Road, which is a grade II listed building, the council’s conservation officer said the plan was a “step too far” and building automated gates in a protected conservation area was “unacceptable.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel