inconsistent consultations

[gravelrash]

Trying to get planning for a site that has had an access for 100 years on to a 20mph Zone  but each time I put planning in I get a different highways

consultant and they give a different site line measurement than the previous. Initially I argued with Highways because they based ther consultation on a 30mph road but they would not change argument.

So far...

 

 

16/07258/OT –Highways consultee stated;

‘Leeds Road is a secondary distributor road and sight lines of2.4m x 90m should be provided however if the applicant can demonstrate by a radar speed survey that vehicle speeds are contained at or below 30 mph 2.4m x 70m sightlines would be acceptable.’

 

 during a telephone conversation with ************ after withdrawal of application he stated that he had erred in his consulation based on 30mph speed limit and stated that junction view lines would be achieved at 45m or less based on 20mph speed zone.

17/07322/OT – Highway consultee ************** based view line on 30mph, stating 15m to east and 70m to west

 

App/n4720.w/18/3207003 – planning inspector stated;

 

14. Notwithstanding the Council’s argument with regard to visibility splays, I observed on site that there would be a clear view to the east in excess of 100 metres for vehicular traffic and a greater view than stated for pedestrian traffic. In the opposite direction the curvature of the road, parked vehicles and existing vegetation close to the site entrance restricts the view from the track to the centre of the oncoming lane to 20 metres or so, without taking bonnet length into account.

 

The latest highways consultee states view lines as 20m each way.

 

Four different statements…

 

to make issues worse... 

 

18/01707/FU –a recent decision on Station Road at Allerton Bywater which is also a secondary distributor road was allowed with view line distance of 30m although the road is 30mph. the highways consultee at no point has requested a speed check and as such distance should be 90m.

 

15/01177/FU- two house development on a type 1 road with 30mph speed limit. Both driveways are sloped back and view lines are impeded by 1200mm high boundary wall projections from neighbouring properties.

Inspection of the site reflects online plans which show one drive way having a view line to the left of 15m while the other driveway has a view line of 21m. At no point was a  speed check or traffic analysis requested by highways.

 

Has anyone else suffered similar problems and how did you deal with it?

[joe90]

Oh yes, our new drive (which was put in 1996 with council permission, which they deny despite our having their letters confirming) kept telling us we did not have the required line of site and we did not own the land either side to create a splay. We DO own the land either side but had well in excess the required visibility. It took me 6 months to get a highways chap to visit to confirm, he said “what’s the problem, you have lots of visibility “ when I asked him to convey this to the planning department he said he could not, he could only state that he had no objection. Go figure!!! A bunch of jobs worth’s in my opinion. It was only finalised when I took our planning application to the Secretary of State on appeal, we won on all grounds (house, garage, drive, ecology) and the appeal inspector noted that the planning department were not abiding by their own policies!!!!

Edited April 18, 2019 by joe90

[gravelrash]

Problem is that even the planning inspector had his own opinion

[joe90]

I may be wrong but it’s the planning inspector that will decide, can you not get him/her to meet you on site to discuss and show him the inconsistencies from highways. Why would you need to prove traffic speed with a radar trap when there is a 20mph speed limit in force?

[gravelrash]

It feels like rules for one and not for others although I believe its just ineptitude....problem is convincing PO that its a shambles and getting him to agree that and come to some sensible conclusion...but the PO seems to not want the responsibility. Catch 22.

[scottishjohn]

have exactly same problem with  the sites I am looking at -the PP says  40metres each way and this a a "U" class road --eg a nearly a cart track with grass growing in the middle

 the bin lorry don,t even come up it  and i don,t think there is a bit 80 metres long on it that is straight --you have put bins at bottom of road .#

gates have to set back 6m --so you are not on road when  you shut them  and  I have to make a layby to widen road as well.

for a road that you could count the cars that use it on one hand 

 

 

 

[joe90]

43 minutes ago, gravelrash said:

I believe its just ineptitude.

 

YUP, welcome to the mine field  of planning, it’s like trying to herd cats ?, it’s only when I went to appeal that things got sorted by someone with sense, (IMO) and that took over two years.

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by joe90

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, gravelrash said:

[...]

Has anyone else suffered similar problems and how did you deal with it?

 

Yes. 

The discipline in our case wasn't the engineer, it was the ecologist.

And the consequences cost us £6000.

How to deal with it? Fulminate, swear a huge amount, get pissed. Calm down. Move on.

When I see an opportunity for revenge  appropriately professional feedback, I might just take it

[Ferdinand]

8 hours ago, gravelrash said:

Trying to get planning for a site that has had an access for 100 years on to a 20mph Zone  but each time I put planning in I get a different highways

consultant and they give a different site line measurement than the previous. Initially I argued with Highways because they based ther consultation on a 30mph road but they would not change argument.

So far...

 

 

16/07258/OT –Highways consultee stated;

‘Leeds Road is a secondary distributor road and sight lines of2.4m x 90m should be provided however if the applicant can demonstrate by a radar speed survey that vehicle speeds are contained at or below 30 mph 2.4m x 70m sightlines would be acceptable.’

 

 during a telephone conversation with ************ after withdrawal of application he stated that he had erred in his consulation based on 30mph speed limit and stated that junction view lines would be achieved at 45m or less based on 20mph speed zone.

17/07322/OT – Highway consultee ************** based view line on 30mph, stating 15m to east and 70m to west

 

App/n4720.w/18/3207003 – planning inspector stated;

 

14. Notwithstanding the Council’s argument with regard to visibility splays, I observed on site that there would be a clear view to the east in excess of 100 metres for vehicular traffic and a greater view than stated for pedestrian traffic. In the opposite direction the curvature of the road, parked vehicles and existing vegetation close to the site entrance restricts the view from the track to the centre of the oncoming lane to 20 metres or so, without taking bonnet length into account.

 

The latest highways consultee states view lines as 20m each way.

 

Four different statements…

 

to make issues worse... 

 

18/01707/FU –a recent decision on Station Road at Allerton Bywater which is also a secondary distributor road was allowed with view line distance of 30m although the road is 30mph. the highways consultee at no point has requested a speed check and as such distance should be 90m.

 

15/01177/FU- two house development on a type 1 road with 30mph speed limit. Both driveways are sloped back and view lines are impeded by 1200mm high boundary wall projections from neighbouring properties.

Inspection of the site reflects online plans which show one drive way having a view line to the left of 15m while the other driveway has a view line of 21m. At no point was a  speed check or traffic analysis requested by highways.

 

Has anyone else suffered similar problems and how did you deal with it?

 

Short of taking them to Appeal, a professional report or threatening to take them to Appeal can help.

 

F

[Temp]

Think I'd get my own report done. Think some council specify a 25m splay in a 20mph zone. See if you can find a policy doc for your council and get a report showing how you can meet that.

[gravelrash]

went to appeal and got... 

 

14. Notwithstanding the Council’s argument with regard to visibility splays, I observed on site that there would be a clear view to the east in excess of 100 metres for vehicular traffic and a greater view than stated for pedestrian traffic. In the opposite direction the curvature of the road, parked vehicles and existing vegetation close to the site entrance restricts the view from the track to the centre of the oncoming lane to 20 metres or so, without taking bonnet length into account.

 

Ive stated what MsF states for 20mph Zone (which is significantly different to a Speed limit as the y have to control speed to zone limit) but they still wont play ball. There is loads of recent examples where they have not even bothered with existing access even though the reason for use has changed or vehicle users increases.

[Jeremy Harris]

We went through a lot of hoops over visibility splays, despite being on an unclassified single track lane that gets maybe a dozen vehicle movements a day, if that.

 

I found that the problem was that they seem to do everything by some arcane formula and are incapable of applying common sense.  In the end I suggested that I move the entrance to an impossible location (impossible when on the ground looking at it, as it went up a 1:4 slope) and that caused the highways chap to actually come out to the site.  He took one look at our initially proposed entrance (right on a sharp bend) declared that it was safer than my new "impossible" proposal and withdrew all requirements for any visibility splay at all.

 

Whilst grateful that the chap applied common sense in the end, I was just a bit peeved at all the hoops I'd had to jump though.  I'd explained several times that the traffic level was very low, and, because of the narrowness of the lane traffic was forced to travel at low speed, but because they had the lane listed as being in a 30 mph zone they insisted on applying their standard rules for that speed. 

[ProDave]

We had the same inconsistancy.

 

Initially Highways stated we needed a visibility line of 90 metres in each direction, but also stated we must "demonstrate control" over the splay.  That was the crucial problem as part of the visibility line is across neighbours gardens that we don't control.

 

However when I pointed out to the planners that just a year earlier planning was passed for another house in the same road and that only demanded a 60 metre visibility splay and crucially did not require the applicant to demonstrate control over the land, they applied the same condition to us, which was easy to comply with.

 

I don't think anyone ever came to look at the site. And the "problem" is although we are a single track rural road that only serves 10 houses and 3 farmers fields, there is no speed limit, so they applied the standard formula for a national speed limit road, with no though that 99.9% of traffic is doing a good deal less than 60.