| Location |
Northcliffe Lodge, Northcliffe Drive, Penarth
|
| Proposal |
Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuilding, erection of 30 apartments, new access and alterations to adjacent parking area, provision of a footpath link, replacement tree planting and landscaping and associated works
|
| Case Officer |
Footways and pedestrian movements
I note the lack of any reference to these in the officer reports/Memorandums, please say if current policy is for the urban fabric to be permeable to pedestrians and cyclists, as is given in the LDP.
Please say what you consider about potential footways to the adjacent sites and areas, including the Northcliff flats, Mariner Heights, Northcliff Drive and the Custom House/Marina. What regard has been paid to the historic nature of the disused path (due to lack of maintenance of the former wooden structures) down the escarpment to the bottom of Paget Road? In particular, please supply documentation on the applicant’s claim to have agreement with the Council not to include that link in their proposals.
Seeing there are clear advantages for pedestrians of using the existing Northcliff Drive access to Northcliff Lodge and the applicant’s latest letter saying they agree with one resident of the Drive to block this route off to pedestrians, does the Council accept this? Please give reasons, including reference to the DDA provisions of the Equalities Act. If not, ask the applicants to change the design to include a pedestrian route onto Northcliff Drive.
Changes to footways on Paget Place
The access will include 2m wide footways on both sides of the roads at the bell mouth. Will the Council require a minimal splay plus dropped kerbs to give an undiverted walkway along Paget Place, consistent with Active Travel guidance (rather than past practice of wide splays and diversion away from the corner)? Will you ask for similar narrowing of the splay at the Northcliff flats entrance, to be included with the developer’s work on the carparking within the flats’ site?
Have you consulted your transport planning officer with regard to asking the developer to provide a bus shelter (or two, on both sides of the road) in accord with policy and the developer’s claims that the residents will make good use of buses? Will you include road-markings, to comply with Council policy on “Silver standard” bus stops?
Have you considered seeking pavement build-outs and a pedestrian crossing of Paget Place in conjunction with the buses and proving for the walking route from Northcliff to the local primary school and town centre? If not, will you now do so?
Lack of Footways into the site. The plans show footways (or space for them) along part of the long drive, but crucially no footway space around the tight corner where visibility is poor. Your Highway officer comments refer to a car and lorry passing, but not to space for pedestrians too. Why don’t you require a safe, kerbed footway to highways standards into the site (as eg. in the adjacent Mariners Heights development)?
Lack of Footways within the site The internal layout of the development consists primarily of shared surface and is considered acceptable given the low number of trips likely to be associated with this development.
Does the Council consider this “acceptable”, particularly in view of the low provision of car-parking or would you require either defined kerbed pavements or paved areas to distinguish them from asphalt roadway and with bollards to stop vehicles parking on them? Would you also require that footways be included as far as possible separate from the entrance road and cutting out the bends, in accordance with good design for pedestrians? These would probably require steps (while the access via Northcliff Dv is useable by wheelchairs, child-buggies etc.)
Accessibility to facilities
The applicant says the site is very accessible for walking and public transport:
- fails to mention the steep hill between the site and Penarth schools and town shops
- it also fails to mention that the 89/89A bus service is limited at only 1 bus per hour, none in the evenings after 17.30 and none on Sundays. Also that it is dependent on subsidy that could be terminated at any time.
- fails to apply the Council's criteria for walking distances on the flat**, with adjustment for the steep St Augustine's hill or diversion around it.
Will you point out to the applicant that the site does not meet standards for access to services and facilities used by the Council (eg. IHT 2000**) and reject their "very accessible" claim? Point out they could submit evidence of use of public transport and walking to local facilities by residents of the existing flats. Also suggest that they might offer to fund extra services of the 89/89A to remedy the lack in evening and Sundayservices.
Control of car-parking. The Highways officer Memo makes no reference to the provision of parking spaces on site being well below the Council parking standard for new dwellings outside the town centre (1 space per bedroom) and the lack of parking for over-sized vehicles (motor-homes etc.). While the Council says it reserves the right to be flexible, what reason do you have for being flexible in this case? If none, because bus and walking accessibility are limited, will you ask the applicant to meet the standard of the 2015 draft SPG or the current standard?
If the developer will supply only 1 space per dwelling, can there be a requirement on the management company to regulate on-site parking to one vehicle per dwelling and to prevent use of the ‘visitor’ parking by residents? In view of the overspill onto Paget Place, which could well require managing via a residents parking scheme, can the applicants be required to fund any scheme (capital and running costs) ? As it’s their under-provision of parking that will cause the problem, can the applicants (or the future management company) be obliged to keep a register of their residents’ vehicles (to be open to Council officers when checking) and meet the full ongoing management and enforcement costs of the residents parking scheme?
------------------------------
**The Institute of Highways and Transportation Guidelines for Providing Journeys on Foot (2000) suggests that in terms of commuting, schools and recreational journeys, walking distances of up to 2000m can be considered, with the desirable and acceptable distances being 500m and 1000m. Consequently, the Council will assess the accessibility of sites against the below criteria.
Facilities, e.g shops, bus stop. Commuting / school Other
Desirable 200m 500m 400m
Acceptable 400m 1000m 800m
Preferred maximum 800m 2000m 1200m
Source: Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot (IHT 2000) *Acceptable walking distance to facilities are defined as those where a high proportion of the trips generated by new development can be conveniently made by passenger transport, on foot or by bicycle.
~~ Parking Standards SPG March 2015
Has standard of 1 carspace per bedroom for houses and apartments, with possibly deductions of 10%, 20% 30% for sustainability scores (see Appendix 1), which include closeness of facilities, of a bus-stop and bus frequency.
No comments:
Post a Comment