Transport planner won't object to increase in traffic despite saying the road is dangerous

[Archibold Neptune]

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

[dpmiller]

it's a cul-de-sac so a dead end with no through traffic, how busy could it be?

[Temp]

13 hours ago, Archibold Neptune said:

Q1 The second application was put forward using the area of both sites but only one has change of use. Is this permissable?

 

Its not quite clear to me what he has applied for.  Can you post a link to the planning application?

 

An application for a "change of use" isn't some kind of short cut. Its a necessary addition to some planning applications.  For example you can use an agricultural  field as a camp site for 28 days a year but any more than that and you need to apply for change of use as well as planning permission. In general land is considered to have a "use class". Changes within a use class are permitted development. Changes between different use classes may need an application for "change of use".

 

That said the government have allowed some changes between different use classes to be permitted development but these require a "prior approval" process to be followed. An example is the class q conversion of a barn to a house.

 

If he plans to knock down the workshop and replace it with flats across two sites then an application for change of use from industrial to residential together with demolition and building of flats is probably the correct and most onerous process.

 

If he plans to convert the workshop using permitted development requiring prior approval that might be easier to obtain. However it doesnt sound like that's what he's doing?

[Archibold Neptune]

Quote

it's a cul-de-sac so a dead end with no through traffic, how busy could it be?

 

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.

[Archibold Neptune]

Quote

Its not quite clear to me what he has applied for.

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...

[Mr Punter]

You main points seem to be:

 

1. Availability and safety of parking. 

The solution would be to provide on-site parking and turning within the application site.

 

2. Safety for road users due to increased traffic.

Seven or ten flats will not make a large impact on safety.  Unless there were proposals to build an estate of, say, 30 houses I cannot see any issue.

 

Do you have any other agenda?

[Archibold Neptune]

Quote

1. Availability and safety of parking. 

The solution would be to provide on-site parking and turning within the application site.

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

 

Quote

2. Safety for road users due to increased traffic.

Seven or ten flats will not make a large impact on safety.  Unless there were proposals to build an estate of, say, 30 houses I cannot see any issue.

 

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.

 

Quote

Do you have any other agenda?

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

 

[pdf27]

12 minutes ago, Archibold Neptune said:

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.

I think you're going to struggle here - if doubling the danger by the application is unacceptably dangerous, then it's probably unacceptably dangerous at the moment and they should be looking at prohibiting cars from the existing housing driving down there. If not, the increase isn't going to be statistically severe enough for them to deny the planning application, which is probably why the planners aren't objecting to it. At this level danger really increases in orders of magnitude (10x, 100x, 1000x) - so a 2x increase (arguably 4x since there would presumably be more pedestrians too) isn't big enough to register as a major reason.

 

If you can come up with a way of ameliorating this, such as building a new pavement or having them provide pedestrian access to another road via their new development, then you might be able to try to get it added as a planning condition. I think you're really going to struggle to oppose the application itself though.

[Buzz]

The first consideration once you have identified a potential hazard  is , can the hazard be removed , as you need to drive down the road to access your home then ideally not, but it would remove the problem. as @pdf27 above if it is so dangerous why is it going ahead at the moment. 

Second would be to reduce the likelihood of the hazard occurring by adding preventative measures, a simple solution would be to paint 2 big yellow lines on both sides of the road thus removing the need to walk in the middle of the road to avoid parked cars, alternatively narrow the road and add pavements with a passing place half way along completely separating pedestrians and vehicles. 

The only advice i can offer is what would you like to see if the flats are approved ? by all means fight the application on the grounds of safety but the road hazards can be removed or reduced to a level that would be deemed an improvement on what already exists and the planners will be particularly happy if they can get these improvements paid for by Mr. 7 flats , win win in their eyes.

 

[ProDave]

This could well be a case of "be careful what you ask for"

 

You complaint seems to be all the parked cars make the road dangerous, so you want a ban on further development in that road to stop adding traffic so it does not get any worse.

 

I could see that backfiring and the "solution" being to ban parking on perhaps one side of the road as it is clearly a dangerous situation.  Where would that leave you and the rest of the residents if half the on street parking disappeared?

[Archibold Neptune]

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...

[newhome]

I don’t have any experience in planning but your objection simply seems to be down to the increase in traffic which you claim is dangerous as people park on the pavement on both sides of the road meaning that pedestrians have to walk in the road. As others have said the way to get round the perceived danger is to restrict parking to one pavement but the existing residents don’t want that so in other words they put up with the danger for their own convenience. 
 

Whilst it’s not illegal to park on the pavement outside London you are supposed to do so only to allow cars to pass safely in the road, but in doing so you are not supposed to block pedestrians, wheelchair users and pushchairs from being able to use the pavement. If the entry through your road was pedestrian only you may find that occupiers of the flats would be more likely to complain about the pavements being blocked. Or they may just use that area to park their own cars and walk to their flats. In objecting about the use of the road by a handful of additional cars you may find yourself with a different issue. 
 

My brother had a similar scenario in his cul de sac in London. A developer was converting a listed mansion into multiple apartments with new houses in the grounds, and whilst the main vehicular access is via a different road the developer wanted a pedestrian access halfway down my brother’s road. The only possible reason for wanting that was to provide additional parking in the cul de sac as the main entrance is much more convenient for pedestrians. They wanted pedestrian access from 3 different cul de sacs and in the end the pedestrian accesses were refused for 2 reasons; firstly there is a very large pond in the grounds of the mansion and it was found to have great crested newts in it, and secondly

 

REASON: In order to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and prevent undue overspill parking on streets in the vicinity of the site, to comply with Policies BE1, T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

The development is now complete and they do still get visitors to the development parking in the cul de sac but the inconvenience of walking back to the main road and along to the main development mitigates that to a degree. 

[Archibold Neptune]

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)

 

Quote

REASON: In order to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and prevent undue overspill parking on streets in the vicinity of the site, to comply with Policies BE1, T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by Archibold Neptune

[ToughButterCup]

20 hours ago, Archibold Neptune said:

...

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,

....

That's not paranoia. It's sensible speculation. 

[Oz07]

This thread screams nimby to me. Fair play for getting people here on side when a lot of them will have had struggles with their own nimbys. 

[joe90]

If I was a current resident using a wheelchair or kids pushchair or even elderly persons I would be on to the police regularly, blocking the pavement may not be against the law but very dangerous. An accident waiting to happen. Many years ago my brother lived In a narrow road and cars parked both sides. Fire engine could not get down the road (non emergency) and the police booked every car in the street and told residents they must not park on the (narrow) pavements and decide between them which side of the road is for parking!!, luckily my brother was away at the time ?.

[MikeSharp01]

On 17/03/2021 at 13:10, Archibold Neptune said:

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.

Is not pavement parking being banned / changed - HMG put out a consultation at the end of last year, you can find it HERE, closed, but it shows that HMG want's to ensure that pavements are available for pedestrians. It won't be long, 15-20 years before we don't have cars each we just call a 'self drive' and it will navigate to you and whisk you off to your destination. (By then the AI's around you will have worked out that you are thinking of going down the shops and the 'self drive' will be waiting just round the corner for the actual call 'Alexa call a self drive'

[MikeSharp01]

8 hours ago, Archibold Neptune said:

Please does anyone know who we should lobby for a planning condition to remove/restrict the pedestrian access into our road?

If it already has pedestrian access then there is no one you can lobby because it is an established right of way. Even if the road is private, is it?, access rights are very challenging to overturn and in your case, as you have lots of properties that need pedestrian access, you could not restrict it.

[Jilly]

I would resist 'a car free development'. There's no such thing, household wants a car or two these days and it would be impossible to prevent people owning them and then parking nearby.

[the_r_sole]

Be very careful what you wish for, campaigning to have a road acknowledged as dangerous and unable to accommodate any further development can end with a lot of unintended consequences especially if you have a local authority who like parking restrictions or permit parking...

Moreover if the basis for the argument is the current state is dangerous 

[newhome]

8 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Is not pavement parking being banned / changed - HMG put out a consultation at the end of last year, you can find it HERE, closed, but it shows that HMG want's to ensure that pavements are available for pedestrians.

I believe that data from the consultation you linked to was supposed to be published 3 months after the consultation closed. No doubt this will be another thing that uses the COVID excuse. It is supposed to be banned in Scotland later this year and not before time IMO. 

[Archibold Neptune]

Quote

If it already has pedestrian access then there is no one you can lobby because it is an established right of way. Even if the road is private, is it?, access rights are very challenging to overturn and in your case, as you have lots of properties that need pedestrian access, you could not restrict it.

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

[Temp]

On 20/03/2021 at 23:59, Archibold Neptune said:

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)

 

 

You can lobby the Planning Officer and members of the Planning Committee. You can also ask your MP to write to the chairman of the Planning Committee to support your proposed planning condition. However he may only agree to do so if you have support for that from neighbours - so perhaps send him a joint letter.