Highways...

[Mulberry View]

Before we submit full plans, I'm trying to go armed and ready to address the only real standout reason our project may not get approval.

 

The plot is accessed from a shared drive, which currently serves 3 fairly large properties. Ours would be the 4th. The drive joins the highway in a 20mph zone, with speed bumps and pinch points. At the junction with the highway, there is a fence to the right (the 'critical direction') which has been lowered and now enjoys good visibility. To the left there is a 1.4m high wall which definitely does impair the view of traffic from the non-critical direction. I've used the drive for years as it's a family home we're potentially subdividing, I tend to approach the end of the drive on the right-hand side, giving the best possible view to the left, but you still need to edge forwards once you've checked to the right.

 

Highways have already indicated a distaste and unless I can come up with a pragmatic solution, in my own mind at least, I can't see much point in moving things forwards. They suggested speaking with the owner of the wall about lowering it, but the wall looks 100 years old. It's not in a great state of repair, but I just can't see that as being a practical solution. Given that most people object about new developments and change, I can't see any motivation for them to do this to facilitate something that they'll probably ultimately object to.

 

At our end of the road, there is a footpath on the far side only and no other real challenges apart from the wall. The road intensifies further along, away from our driveway, the road gets even narrower, the footpaths disappear and there are cars parked on the road on both sides. The road has a number of tricky driveways, many exit directly onto the road with no turning space and several already have convex traffic mirrors. Could this be a sensible solution to our problem?

Edited November 9, 2019 by christianbeccy

[joe90]

22 minutes ago, christianbeccy said:

To the left there is a 1.4m high wall which definitely does impair the view of traffic from the non-critical direction.

 

22 minutes ago, christianbeccy said:

They suggested speaking with the owner of the wall about lowering it, but the wall looks 100 years old. It's not in a great state of repair, but I just can't see that as being a practical solution. Given that most people object about new developments and change, I can't see any motivation for them to do this

 

If you don’t ask you won’t know!, if you offered to “sympathetically” repair the wall at your expense and in the process lower just the last bit to aid visibility everyone is a winner, if they refuse you have lost nothing, at least you know where you stand.

 

Edit to add, if you offered to do this work on their wall to aid existing visibility (before applying for planning permission) they may be more responsive.

Edited November 9, 2019 by joe90
Add

[scottishjohn]

how long is the wall ?

start by getting a quote to rebuild it

is it brick or stone ? drystone dykes here cost approx £130, a metre to get rebuilt, but could be more where you are--presuming stone is there --then add on the cost of traffic lights lights+ barriers  for while it is being done 

highways dept  may insist on them

unless it can be rebuilt from inside his garden  and he will allow it

and I can say for sure he won,t want you doing it ,but a proper contractor 

 do some costings   would be my route  at this stage before you even speak to him

 I can,t see a mirror keeping roads dept  happy  at all

do you know what height they will accept?

 is that the only problem with the planning ?

 

[Russell griffiths]

My planning application cost £14,600 most of this made up of consultants who knew their way around the system 

at the end of the day it was worth every penny, I would have paid a lot more. 

If it could be a make or brake situation I would get the best traffic consultant I could find and go armed with some good back up. 

if it meant rebuilding a wall then in the grand scheme of obtaining planning spending money on a wall you don’t own will be a small price to pay. 

 

I really like this saying. 

ITS HARD TO SOAR LIKE AN EAGLE WHILST SURROUNDED BY TURKEYS. 

 

get good professional advice. 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Russell griffiths

[Russell griffiths]

5 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

how long is the wall ?

start by getting a quote to rebuild it

is it brick or stone ? drystone dykes here cost approx £130, a metre to get rebuilt, but could be more where you are--presuming stone is there --then add on the cost of traffic lights lights+ barriers  for while it is being done 

highways dept  may insist on them

unless it can be rebuilt from inside his garden  and he will allow it

and I can say for sure he won,t want you doing it ,but a proper contractor 

 do some costings   would be my route  at this stage before you even speak to him

 I can,t see a mirror keeping roads dept  happy  at all

do you know what height they will accept?

 is that the only problem with the planning ?

 

I don’t see cost as really anything that matters, do you want planning or not, 

 

if I had been in the same situation £5,000- £10,000 -£15,000 on a wall would just have been another minor irritation. 

[Mr Punter]

I have found highways to be fairly approachable.  Perhaps a pre application site meeting with you or your agent / consultant would be the best way forward.

 

Even if the wall owner does not support your scheme they may be more amenable if you agree a cash compensation figure to lower the wall height.  Could look good with some railings on a dwarf wall instead.

[joe90]

By “highways consultant” I presume you mean “private”, it took me a year to get highways to visit my site , planners said we had no splays and did not own the land either side to create one, all this was wrong, when highways eventually (I kept pestering them) arrived on site they agreed with me that visibility was adequate and no work required. I asked if they would recommend my plans but replied they could only “not object” they would not even comment that on a visit no problems were seen. 

[Oz07]

Good advice from @Sensus in this case despite the saltiness!

 

@Russell griffiths think anyone would of spent 15k to get planning on your plot with the setting! What did you buy it as amenity land?

[joe90]

4 hours ago, christianbeccy said:

At the junction with the highway, there is a fence to the right (the 'critical direction') which has been lowered and now enjoys good visibility.

 

[nod]

4 hours ago, christianbeccy said:

Before we submit full plans, I'm trying to go armed and ready to address the only real standout reason our project may not get approval.

 

The plot is accessed from a shared drive, which currently serves 3 fairly large properties. Ours would be the 4th. The drive joins the highway in a 20mph zone, with speed bumps and pinch points. At the junction with the highway, there is a fence to the right (the 'critical direction') which has been lowered and now enjoys good visibility. To the left there is a 1.4m high wall which definitely does impair the view of traffic from the non-critical direction. I've used the drive for years as it's a family home we're potentially subdividing, I tend to approach the end of the drive on the right-hand side, giving the best possible view to the left, but you still need to edge forwards once you've checked to the right.

 

Highways have already indicated a distaste and unless I can come up with a pragmatic solution, in my own mind at least, I can't see much point in moving things forwards. They suggested speaking with the owner of the wall about lowering it, but the wall looks 100 years old. It's not in a great state of repair, but I just can't see that as being a practical solution. Given that most people object about new developments and change, I can't see any motivation for them to do this to facilitate something that they'll probably ultimately object to.

 

At our end of the road, there is a footpath on the far side only and no other real challenges apart from the wall. The road intensifies further along, away from our driveway, the road gets even narrower, the footpaths disappear and there are cars parked on the road on both sides. The road has a number of tricky driveways, many exit directly onto the road with no turning space and several already have convex traffic mirrors. Could this be a sensible solution to our problem?

Not sure what others have posted 

yet 

But if it was the difference between your plot being a plot or just a big garden 

I would approach the highways Ask fora on site meeting

a d find out if lowering the wall would satisfy them and to what height If all goes well I would approach your neighbour Tell them your problem and offer to rebuild the wall or a different wall to a slightly lower height 

Save them doing it at there own expense at a later date 

I would guess that highways would want it to be about a metre 

[scottishjohn]

5 hours ago, Russell griffiths said:

I don’t see cost as really anything that matters, do you want planning or not, 

 

if I had been in the same situation £5,000- £10,000 -£15,000 on a wall would just have been another minor irritation. 

spoken as a man with bottomless pockets

it would be part of the intial project costings  as far as i am concerned 

so you know what you are getting into before comitting  fully  to the project 

"fail to plan and you plan to fail"

the point raised by @Sensus is valid that you might have to buy the ground the wall sits on --that would be a hard sell to present owner 

Me--- I not entertain such a restriction if Iwas that owner on me selling the property later-- unless it came with a big number attached to it

Edited November 9, 2019 by scottishjohn

[Mulberry View]

4 hours ago, Sensus said:

I wouldn't be looking at reducing the height of the wall unless and until you have exhausted all other possibilities.

 

Despite Highway's suggestion that you look into this, when it comes to an application, both Highways and Planning should be looking to ensure that you actually control the land necessary for the visibility splay.

 

This would mean that you'd either have to purchase the land the wall occupies from its current owner, or at the very least persuade them to enter into a formal legal agreement that nothing above the minimum height can be built or planted within the visibility splay, in perpetuity. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop the next owner of the property from coming along and planting a damned great yew hedge (or whatever) that obstructs it.

 

Planning can impose a Condition upon the approval to say that the visibility splay can be kept clear of obstructions, but the rules are that they should not impose Planning Conditions unless a number of tests can be met - one of which is that the Condition must be enforceable, which it is not, if it applies to land outside the control of the application site.

 

This is all actually very interesting and quite true, indeed I could pay for a dwarf wall and nice railings if the owner were agreeable, then, as you say, the next owner tears it all out and does something different. I'm just wondering how to work that into a favourable outcome for us, it might just lead to them arbitrarily saying no.

 

As a point to note, of the 3 current properties, one of them is a converted barn. It was converted to residential use in the late 90's. I'm guessing that this would have been raised then. The planning application for that isn't visible online probably due to it's age. I wonder if it'd be beneficial to see the file for that one, would they share it with me? Thinking back, I kind of remember that happening and I wonder if that was when the fence was lowered in the critical direction, so something must have made them decide to agree that the obstruction to the left was OK.

[Mulberry View]

There is the driveway in question. As you can see, the wall is very aged.

 

I can't even imagine offering to rebuild the wall will be sufficient based on what @Sensus said above. There isn't a realistic prospect of getting the owner of that wall to enter into a legal agreement to prevent them, or the future owners of their property from increasing the height or adding a hedge, so this would mean that any solution along those lines is merely to satisfy highways for the 5 minute inspection visit, which seems ludicrous.

 

The lack of pavement is annoying in this case, with a pavement there, you'd be further forwards when you arrive at the junction, perhaps enough to give the required level of splay visibility.

 

One solution would be to raise the height of the driveway, then taper it off to meet the highway, although whether this could be done from a practical stand-point and whether it would just create an annoying hump is subject to some debate.

[ProDave]

That wall is nowhere near as high as I expected from your description. How high is it exactly?

 

And it is not right on the edge of the highway, it is set back by a grass verge.  What is the distance from the wall to the tarmac of the road? and I don't just mean at that corner say a couple of metres from the driveway?

 

Up here, the visibility is measured from a point 2.4 metres back from the edge of the road, and 1.05 metres high.  If that wall is only marginally above 1.05 metres high there might me mileage in your idea to raise the level of the drive slightly and then slope it down to meet the road.

[MikeSharp01]

Has anybody thought to offer a technology led solution to this, and similar problems. Round here we have dozens of mirrors on trees opposite driveways which is a low tech solution but video could be used with screens and a very wide angle lenses or lidar and the like. On one of our cars the cameras have wide angle lenses that allow me to see both ways down the lane with bumper only a few mm out of the drive. I appreciate the challenges of making this sort of thing possible in all circs but I cannot see that it woukd not be able to help in many places.

[MikeSharp01]

1 hour ago, Sensus said:

Problem is, Planning won't accept such measures

I guess the trick is to show that times move on and that they accep things today they would not have accepted 20 years ago- although I can only speculate what that is. Seeing it another way it may be that such measures might be made mandatory so they form part of building control.

 

[Mulberry View]

2 hours ago, ProDave said:

That wall is nowhere near as high as I expected from your description. How high is it exactly?

 

And it is not right on the edge of the highway, it is set back by a grass verge.  What is the distance from the wall to the tarmac of the road? and I don't just mean at that corner say a couple of metres from the driveway?

 

Up here, the visibility is measured from a point 2.4 metres back from the edge of the road, and 1.05 metres high.  If that wall is only marginally above 1.05 metres high there might me mileage in your idea to raise the level of the drive slightly and then slope it down to meet the road.

 

A highways officer popped by there last week to take a look, it wasn't arranged, so i guess he was just in the area at the time. He measured it as 1.4m. It would be entirely practical to raise the driveway up to this height, but to lose the 400mm addition height over the remaining 2.4m of driveway would just be too steep and with it's own set of problems.

The grass verge is minimal in depth.

 

If you look carefully at the verge on the side where the telegraph pole is, just behind that is a water meter cover. That's set at the height that the driveway would need to be at to stand a chance of meeting the stated requirements.

 

I'm really curious about the other property that was developed there in recent years. It was first converted to residential in the late 90's, then done properly and made into high-spec living accommodation about 5 years ago. When the rework was done 5 years ago, the site notes declared 'no highway issues'. I think the fence on the other side was lowered when it was done in the 90's, I wonder why only one side was required to be altered? I need to see that file I reckon, to see what the stipulation was and how it got through...

[ProDave]

If a highway officer has been to the site, I would be wanting to speak directly to him to hear his view and get an idea if he would object to your plans.

[Mulberry View]

4 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 

Ah, that's new and useful information... yes, simple answer there would be to get hold of the 'Officer's Report' for the approval (the application is probably be too old to be available online, but you can get hold of a copy of this at your LPA offices), which should document the Officer's considerations in that regard.

 

I'll get straight on this tomorrow.

 

By the way, I missed your comment above. There is no pavement on the nearest side and the verge certainly isn't 'walkable'. Weirdly, the house whose wall that is have a gate that leads directly onto the road.

[Temp]

On 09/11/2019 at 14:37, christianbeccy said:

.When the rework was done 5 years ago, the site notes declared 'no highway issues'. 

 

When was the speed reduced to 20mph? Was that after they had declared there were no highway issues on that other application? Eg What was the speed limit at the time there were no highway issues? I think this is starting to look like a new highway officer is just a bit fussy. 

 

If true I think when you submit the application you should point out there were no highway problems identified on the recent/previous application (reference no) when the speed limit was ??? and since then it has been reduced to 20mph.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Temp

[joe90]

On 09/11/2019 at 14:37, christianbeccy said:

The plot is accessed from a shared drive, which currently serves 3 fairly large properties. Ours would be the 4th.

 

If the drive exists and used by “3 fairly large properties” why  would a 4th cause a problem? Yes, numbers of vehicles will increase slightly, it’s obviously not a problem fir the 3 existing users !!!

[Mulberry View]

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

 

If the drive exists and used by “3 fairly large properties” why  would a 4th cause a problem? Yes, numbers of vehicles will increase slightly, it’s obviously not a problem fir the 3 existing users !!!

 

That's the sensible answer. Sadly, I don't think Highways are quite that logical.

[scottishjohn]

8 hours ago, joe90 said:

If the drive exists and used by “3 fairly large properties” why  would a 4th cause a problem? Yes, numbers of vehicles will increase slightly, it’s obviously not a problem fir the 3 existing users !!!

another one adds 33% more traffic to a road which already has traffic calming measures --

i think that is your main problem 

the main road must be quite busy, by thier view, to have speed humps + 20 mph limit

[Ferdinand]

You are right this is all in the detail.

 

1 Have you actually measured it? Ie Sat on a dining chair where your car would be and measured the splays that you already have whilst your longsuffering (soon to be ex ?) friend wanders around with a bright jacket and a paintbrush? Has anyone told you what you do need, so you know your goal in comparing the two?

 

2 I think that if you have not done so, reading the relevant sections of Manual for Streets (MFS) would really help - there is a lot there.

 

There are lots of things you can argue that might help, and it is the actual normal assumptions about those that would determine any appeal.

 

There are several things that have not been mentioned afaics:

 

2 Two houses inside the same space that used to have one will not double traffic. It may push it up by 50%, but should not double it. I can see 1 x 4 bed going to say 2 x 2 and 1 x 3 bed. You need to know what assumptions are made, and how you can design or specify your house to work with that.

 

3 Is there a gradient? Stopping distances reduce uphill, and required splays are based on those. If it slopes the right way, that could help.

 

4 In built up areas the 'setback' (ie "X" distance) can be reduced to 2m sometimes not 2.4m. 20mph + traffic calming sounds arguable.

 

5 Remember that your splays will be set by the 20mph limit - though your survey may show traffic being slow, which I think you can use instead.

 

6 Where is the line to measure the setback from? Your minimal verge may or analogy with the general boundary rule may help slightly there.

 

7 Do you count the "centre" of your drive measuring point as between fences or the hardstanding?

 

8 Have you considered paying the other side to move their fence instead, and realign or splay the drive slightly? 1k to rearrange his dustbins plus a binstore built by you might be attractive. He obviously does not need to drive over the corner that is of interest to you as there is a damn great lamp post in the way. Make an offer that involves you getting what you need from that corner, which could be enforced via eg a covenant.

 

Obvs if you get that the middle moves away from the wall so you can see more left. Question is how much you need, and how far back it has to go, given everything else.

 

9 The MFS has useful context words you can quote about how eg accidents coming out of driveways are very rare. May help you squeak through.

 

And yes, I agree that once you have done enough research, it is worth having an assessment from a suitable consultant to see if you have a realistic case. (Update: on second thoughts I would just ask a Consultant for a 15 minute chat to 'quote', which I would make a fairly detailed chat, then be willing to pay say 300-500 for a short assessment report if they thought 'perhaps'. I would pay that to  get more cetaintly and avoid the Planning Song.)

 

@Sensus may shoot some of those down.

 

F

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Mulberry View]

As an update to this, I went to the LPA office and checked out the old historic plans for the Barn Conversion. It was converted from being used for 'the restoration of antiques' to 'residential use' in 1998. At this time, the Highways Officer had no concern about the access because he felt that the difference in traffic wouldn't be noticed. Questionable for sure, I'd guess the old antiques business rarely saw vehicular movements, it's hardly as though they'd have daily 'footfall', yet they must allow 2-4 vehicle movements per day with residential I'd guess.

 

Notably, it was the same Highways Office then that is looking at the case now.

 

Here is the view down the drive as it was in 2012 at least. Absolutely NO right-hand visibility whatsoever. It looked the same on the 2008 Google Image too, that hedge didn't suddenly spring up out of nowhere...

 

 

 

Then, when the barn was reconverted in 2014, no Highways issues were raised, I guess because it was only reworking, so no consideration was really necessary. However, the hedge was removed sometime after. I guess the new owners of the Barn wanted to be able to leave the drive safely, so did the work voluntarily. As I mentioned early, that totally corrected the right-hand vision to the point where there is no concern.

 

I suppose what I'm hoping for here is that if they weren't concerned about it in 1998, when the situation was MUCH worse, why are they now? It shows a lack of consistency, if nothing else, but also scope for a practical discussion.

 

Oh, as an aside, I think it's been a 20mph zone since the 1990's, it certainly was on the 2008 Google image.

Edited November 22, 2019 by christianbeccy