refusal to reserve access in OPA

[gravelrash]

Still having problems with highways on Outline planning application. Having struggled to pass sequential test and FRA I have requested to place Access as a reserved matter rather than let it go to refusal but PO has refused. He stated 'You need to apply for ‘access’ as we need to be convinced that you can actually safely access the site'. 

 

Does anyone know the Law on this?

[Jilly]

Can you ask the planning Dept for a delay to buy you more time? We had all kinds of faff over the vision splay and had to submit three plans each one minutely different than the preceding one. I have lifted part of the correspondence we had with the council. You need to get a good relationship with the highways officer if possible (and the planning officer), it was really helpful when the architect made errors. Our now redundant planning consultant had a much worse bedside manner.

 

 

'For a 30mph road, as a guide we normally require a visibility splay of 2.4m x 43m.  When you submit your site layout drawing, you should show the maximum visibility splay that you can achieve.  The highway boundary should be marked on the plan for reference (such plans are available fromhighwayboundaries@hertfordshire.gov.uk for a small charge).

 

Turning within the site is advised, so that vehicles may enter and exit the site in forward gear.  I note the position of the school, so would not wish to see vehicles reversing out of your site.  Hardstanding areas should be surfaced and/or drained in accordance with DCLG guidance on the permeable surfacing of front gardens (document available online).

 

At HCC, we use our in-house guidance, Roads in Hertfordshire, referenced below, and also Manual for Streets 1 and 2 (also available online).  I would recommend consulting Roads in Hertfordshire when designing your access.'

 

https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/highways-roads-and-pavements/business-and-developer-information/development-management/highways-development-management.aspx

 

 

 

[gravelrash]

the relationship went out the window after presenting several recent allowed applications which had Visibility splays well below MsF SSD tables ie.90m down to 30m, but no explanation why from highways. They even refuse to accept that a secondary distributor road is not a distributor road under MsF 2 para3.105, even though 200yds down the road an application was allowed using the same policy 6mths ago. I have requested the previous examples be taken into material consideration but highways are just ignoring any questions asked or giving ridiculous excuses. 

[ProDave]

I got my visibility requirements reduced by highways simply by pointing out another recent planning application in the same street that was passed with a shorter visibility splay requirement (one that I could comply with)