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?
