Archibold Neptune

Hi, Please can you tell me if it’s possible to get a planning condition for weathered / blended / reclaimed bricks? (There is a large overbearing construction proposed and a lot of the objection would be removed just if the facade was broken up a some colour variation in the bricks) eg too overbearing/plain -> https://www.higginscladding.co.uk/product/kingston-handmade-heather-red/ eg more attractive for a larger wall -> https://armstrongsupplies.co.uk/products/london-weathered-yellow-brick-slip?variant=39290569064627&cmp_id=12696839997&adg_id=120878678295&kwd=&device=m&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6Om3sYWx8AIVD6myCh2PdwewEAQYASABEgLLF_D_BwE Thanks, Archibold

I was just talking about the door access to the new development. Can a planning condition be given that says change the pedestrian access (door) to an emergency exit only? (or is it legally impossible because it's changing an established right of way?) Thanks

Thank you @newhome. Please does anyone know who we should lobby for a planning condition to remove/restrict the pedestrian access into our road? Is it the planning officer or the transport planner? (I'm somewhat optimistic because I believe the developer may be in favour)

Thanks very much everyone. Yes if they put double yellow lines down one side of our street it would be a disaster as there would be 50% less parking than houses - some families would likely be forced to move house. The developer has written to us to say she would prefer a car free development (I assume more pofitable to build flats in place of the parking spaces). Yes there is another pedestrian access to another street without dangerous parking (it has double yellow lines). If the access to our street is blocked / made a fire escape / one-way door then the risk of overflow parking would be removed and (I assume) the transport planner would be happy with no on-site parking spaces? (and us neighbours obviously benefit from no extra traffic, even a reduction from prior use). But what I don't understand is why the developer hasn't proposed the one-way door solution herself?? At the risk of souncing paranoid I'm concerned she may be persuing this application with parking to force the council to approve a very unpopular scheme, and then she can put forward a scheme forward later which solves these problems (1 way pestrian door to our street?) but has significantly more density. The council would then be reluctantly forced into a binary decision and likely approve the higher density scheme (have seen it happen for other permitted development schemes). Regarding the application with 7 flats and 7 parking spaces (approved by the transport planner but pending the council meeting) is it worth trying to interject on this now and ask for a planning condition mandating a single-direction pedestrian door to our street and removal of the on-site parking spaces (awkward given that 3 parking spaces have been approved in a previous application?)? Who should we contact and how? We've been strongly advised not to contact the developer directly? Am keen to get the one diectional door planning condition applied to this application rather than waiting for the next...

we don't object to the parking spaces themselves (subject to there being proper turning areas), but we do object to the danger to pedestrians from the extra traffic Pedestrians are walking on the street between parked cars. The road is one car's width therefore when a car comes round the blind corner the pedestrians have nowhere to go, they are relying on the car to stop which I'd argue is dangerous (and the transport planner has already acknowledge this). The 7 flat application would roughly double to traffic levels therefore double the danger. no Please can someone suggest the most effective route to challenge the transport planner's lack of objection to traffic danger? Should we ask for a meeting with the transport planner? Or planning officer? Many thanks

They're doing it in stages to reduce their risk: 1st application: prior approval change of use to residential (approved but with planning condition to provide on-side parking (the condition didn't say how many spaces)) 2nd application: planning permission for 3 apartments with 3 parking spaces (same as the 1st application but with the parking spaces on the drawings) (councilors approved because the planning officer told them that 3 spaces had already been approved in the 1st application and there was no matieral difference (I'm not convinced that's true because the number of parking spaces wasn't mentioned in the 1st application's planning condition)) 3rd application: 7 apartments and 7 parking spaces on the site of the current workshop and the neighbouring workshop. This decision is pending but the transport planner hasn't objected to the increase in traffic (despite acknowledging the road is dangerous) sorry I can't really provide a link to the application because it's all a bit contentious...

The danger will be from the traffic to/from the new development and from the nature of the road (there is a blink chicane with cars parked each side of the street leaving only enough space for one car width). Currently elderly and children have to walk in the middle of the road and sometimes cars appear head on, so that would occur more often with the new development.

Hi All, Please could you help us with our pickle?: We live in an extremely tight cul-de-sac with a blind chicane. There is pavement parking and we all walk in the narrow road – near misses with traffic can happen coming around the blind chicane. It can be dangerous and several councillors agree with us. There’s an old workshop at the end of the cul-de-sac that’s had 1 resident and vehicle arriving and parking there all day for more than 20 years. Adjacent is another industrial site. Now someone’s bought both of these and wants to build flats here. At first they tried to get change of use by putting in a bid for 6 flats. They finally received an acceptance of change of use with 3 flats with a planning condition requiring on-site parking because the road is narrow and difficult to negotiate. The planning application didn’t say how many parking spaces should be provided. But no comment was made about the danger of increased traffic from the trebling of cars despite conceding the road is narrow and difficult to negotiate. Now there is an application pending for 7 flats with 7 parking spaces using both industrial spaces. Given that this is two sites, can he apply for this under the one change of use or does he have to get change of use for the other area as well? We can see the transport planner has responded with no objections against the extra traffic. They have accepted the 7 spaces in principle and have also put in the condition that cars must enter and exit the parking area in forward gear. I’m worried that despite most of the councillors thinking the road is narrow and that safety may be being put at risk, they will not overrule a transport planner. Q1 The second application was put forward using the area of both sites but only one has change of use. Is this permissable? Q2. The transport planner said the road was crowded enough to require onsite parking but doesn’t have a problem with increasing through-traffic seven fold (this will be fast through traffic to the end of the road, not stop traffic). Is this contradiction open to discussion at this point? Q3. In the planning meeting the planning officer said the “three” parking spaces (he actually said the word three) have already been approved in the first application. However the planning condition in the first approval only said “parking should be provided” without saying how many spaces should be provided. Did the planning officer mislead the councillors by saying there hadn’t been a material change so they couldn't challenge the second application on parking? If so what can we do? Q4. For the 7 flat application the transport planner didn’t object to the tight turning (even though it doesn’t actually appear to be possible to manoeuvre into the parking spaces if two cars are parked either side at the end of the road – as they are legally allowed to do). We’ve seen another application from the applicant that has swept path analysis without these two cars present so we suspect they were not included in the second application (assuming the swept path analysis was actually done). We’ve seen an email trail where the applicant said the design satisfies swept path analysis but they didn’t provide the drawing(!) – and the planning officer and transport planner didn’t request the drawing! Can we make a request to see this? How might this impact on the already granted permission? I’m really puzzled – it seems we can complain to the ombudsman after the event for damages once the flats are built but not before? Many thanks for any help or pointers. Archibold