Major questions on traffic issues at proposed Northcliffe development yet to be answered

As sent to Yvonne Prichard VoG planning officer re Northcliffe development 2017/00541/FUL

Request for information on the Highways assessment of the Northcliffe Lodge development, re. the Highway Authority Observation Sheet, by Paul, D Harrison, of 23 June 2017

1. Please supply details on this statement of required parking spaces: 

“the amended scheme requires the provision of 42 car parking spaces in accordance with the councils adopted parking standards”.

The Officers’ planning report to the January 2017 Committee said the site scores well on sustainability points. Please supply details of that scoring.  Under Appendix 6 to the 2008 Wales Parking Standards, there are none of the cited facilities (foodstore, PO, health, school (Headlands special school is not public)) within the 400m walking distance, the bus stop does not have a service between 7am-7pm.

2.  Please say if the Highways officers have considered improved siting and access to the local bus-stops, including their relocation and safeguarding from parking and the need for a safe crossing of the road (Paget Terrace).  Also have they considered the need for bus-shelters at both stops?

3. The requirement in Mr Harrison’s sketch for tactile paving at the new access (aligned with the current pavement line) is good, but the access is shown with an unnecessarily wide splay (when regard is given to the north of Paget Place being used for parking and bus stop). The new drawing (Shear Design 15025-106) is even more splayed over the pavement.   Can Mr Harrison explain the apparent departure from best practice of the Manual for Streets?  Why require a “rumble strip” rather than the preferred road-table?

4. Restructured car parking for the Northcliffe Apartments, re-alignment of access to modern standards.  Have the Highways Dept. considered the opportunity to narrow that access to Manual for Streets standards, like for the new access?  Why not require the two accesses to be combined?

5.  Why have Highways Dept. accepted the concept design of a “shared surface” access driveway, with textured walkway but no kerbs, as known to encourage parking on the footway?  How would such parking be controlled and stopped when it’s non-highway under private ownership?  In particular, how would extra parking adjacent to the 3 visitor spaces be prevented?

As far parking adjacent to the flats, how would parking be limited to the designated spaces, and spill- over into the shared-space street between eg. Blocks A and B (computer visual 03) be prevented?

6. Inadequate access driveway.    While the footway on the access driveway is required to be 2.0m, the swept-path drawing shows vehicles over-riding the (1.8m) footway.  This surely implies the design is inadequate and unsafe for walking.   The separation from the Apartments site appears to be minimal – why not adjust the design to give sufficient space for a fence and planting including trees which will mature into replacements for the present TPO-covered trees?    

7.  Ramped accesses:  have the Highways Dept checked the pedestrian accesses, including ramps, for wheelchair accessibility, particularly in regard to the slopes?

8.  Permeability of the development for walking/cycling -  some permeability to adjacent Mariner Heights, Northcliffe Drive and Northcliffe Apartments could be achieved; what consideration have Highways given to implementing policy for high permeability?  The planning officer offered the Secured-by-Design excuse last time, but that cannot be taken to over-ride policy on permeability without specific reason.

8. Lighting for the footway/access road.  Have the Highways Dept. considered the need and standard for such lighting; also other features for pedestrian safety as under the Police authority’s Secured-by-Design programme?

Huge Qs on lack of pavement at Northcliffe Lodge proposed cliff development

Northcliffe Lodge proposed development: 

Application Number
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.

http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/Documents/_Committee%20Reports/Cabinet/2015/15-05-11/VOG-Supplementary-Planning-Guidance-Standards-Report-of-Public-Consultation---Appendix-1.pdf