Planning application 23/03465/FUL - Highways comments
Dear Croydon Borough Council,
Having been consulted on the access proposals submitted under planning application 22/04130/FUL, on 11 November 2022 'Highways Development’ responded as follows:
“… The details supporting the access and parking arrangement [sic] are considered unacceptable. …. The proposal to narrow the central island on Arkwright Road to enable vehicles to turn right from the access road onto Arkwright Road is consider [sic] UNACCEPTABLE and UNSAFE. Narrowing the island could encourage vehicles to turn right into the site from Arkwright Road which is also considered UNACCEPTABLE. It is the opinion of highways that the ISLAND SHOULD BE EXTENDED, and signage used to prevent vehicles turning right and only enable vehicles to turn left and follow the one way working of the highway layout. ..." [emphasis added]
We are told that the access proposals for 23/03465/FUL are unchanged. On 2 February, I emailed Highways Development and asked (a) whether (or not) they still considered the proposal to narrow the traffic island "unacceptable and unsafe", and (b) whether it was still their opinion that the island should be extended, to prevent vehicles turning right, both out of AND onto the Site.
In answer to my queries, on 7 February a 'Senior Highways Engineer' (Nathan Evans) told me "... HAVING DISCUSSED THE SCHEME WITH PLANNERS, the option currently proposed which allows vehicles to turn right is a potential solution which could be implemented .... Recommendations to retain the one-way system have also been put forward and this option could also be implemented. Both are options which have been discussed internally and are VIABLE ...". [emphasis added]
The following evening, the Planning Committee were advised by the case officer that "In terms of (the) existing traffic island, it's proposed to reduce the size of that and increase the hatching to allow vehicles to turn right onto Arkwright Road and also right onto the Site.". The Council's Head of Development Management (Nicola Townsend) added that " The highway proposals are the same as we have seen in the two previous applications. We have had discussions with our ‘highways team’ who have confirmed that the modifications are viable options.".
Residents are concerned that even if these proposals may now be considered 'viable', that does NOT guarantee that they would be SAFE [for all highway users], if/when implemented.
+++ Please provide copies of any information relating to those discussions (between the Highways Department and 'planners') which resulted in the apparent [and very important] change of opinion.
+++ Please provide a copy of any Road Safety Audit (any stage) covering the arrangements that were 'approved' by the Planning Committee on 8 February 2024.
I am now very concerned about the Council's attitude toward ensuring/maintaining the safety of highway users.
Yours faithfully,
Mr D White
Dear Croydon Borough Council,
This is a reminder that you have not replied by 13 March 2024 to my FOI request as required by law.
Yours faithfully,
David White
Information Team Croydon
Digital Services
Assistant Chief Executive Directorate
Bernard Wetherill House
7th Floor, Zone B
Croydon
CR0 1EA
Contact: Information Team
[Croydon Borough Council request email]
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email. If
you have a processing request, please ensure you quote that reference in
your emails to us.
Dear David White
Freedom of information request - FOI/9555
Subject: FOI - Planning application 23/03465/FUL - Highways
Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of
any exemptions. Where consideration is being given to exemptions the 20
working day timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable
depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases
you will be notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be
indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the
earliest opportunity.
If we are unable to provide you with the information requested we will
notify you of this together with the reason(s) why, and details of how you
may appeal.
Please note that the directorate team may contact you for further
information where we believe that the request is not significantly clear
for us to respond fully.
Kind Regard
Information Management Team
Croydon Digital Services
Assistant Chief Executive Directorate
7th Floor, Zone B
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA
Dear Mr White,
Please accept our apologies, it seems as though your FOI request was missed and therefore was not sent to the service.
I have now logged the request and sent it to the service, they have been made aware that the request is overdue and that an urgent response is required.
We apologies for the oversight and will get this escalated to ensure we provide the information without any further delay.
Thank you for your kind patience.
Kind regards,
Information Management Team
Croydon Digital Services
Assistant Chief Executive Directorate
Floor 3 Zone E, Bernard Wetherill House, Mint Walk, Croydon, CR0 1EA
Dear FOI,
On the basis that you have promised to "provide the information without any further delay". I strongly insist that 'the information' be provided by close of play Friday 22nd March.
Yours sincerely,
David White
Information Team Croydon
Digital Services
Assistant Chief Executive Directorate
Bernard Wetherill House
7th Floor, Zone B
Croydon
CR0 1EA
Contact: Information Team
[Croydon Borough Council request email]
Dear David White
Request FOI/9555
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Your request has been considered under the provisions of the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004. Specifically, you have requested the
following information:
"... The details supporting the access and parking arrangement [sic] are
considered unacceptable. .... The proposal to narrow the central island on
Arkwright Road to enable vehicles to turn right from the access road onto
Arkwright Road is consider [sic] UNACCEPTABLE and UNSAFE. Narrowing the
island could encourage vehicles to turn right into the site from Arkwright
Road which is also considered UNACCEPTABLE. It is the opinion of highways
that the ISLAND SHOULD BE EXTENDED, and signage used to prevent vehicles
turning right and only enable vehicles to turn left and follow the one way
working of the highway layout. ..." [emphasis added]
We are told that the access proposals for 23/03465/FUL are unchanged. On 2
February, I emailed Highways Development and asked (a) whether (or not)
they still considered the proposal to narrow the traffic island
"unacceptable and unsafe", and (b) whether it was still their opinion that
the island should be extended, to prevent vehicles turning right, both out
of AND onto the Site.
In answer to my queries, on 7 February a Senior Highways Engineer (Nathan
Evans) told me "... HAVING DISCUSSED THE SCHEME WITH PLANNERS, the option
currently proposed which allows vehicles to turn right is a potential
solution which could be implemented .... Recommendations to retain the
one-way system have also been put forward and this option could also be
implemented. Both are options which have been discussed internally and are
VIABLE ...". [emphasis added]
The following evening, the Planning Committee were advised by the case
officer that "In terms of (the) existing traffic island, its proposed to
reduce the size of that and increase the hatching to allow vehicles to
turn right onto Arkwright Road and also right onto the Site.". The
Councils Head of Development Management (Nicola Townsend) added that " The
highway proposals are the same as we have seen in the two previous
applications. We have had discussions with our highways team who have
confirmed that the modifications are viable options.".
Residents are concerned that even if these proposals may now be considered
viable, that does NOT guarantee that they would be SAFE [for all highway
users], if/when implemented.
+++ Please provide copies of any information relating to those discussions
(between the Highways Department and planners) which resulted in the
apparent [and very important] change of opinion.
+++ Please provide a copy of any Road Safety Audit (any stage) covering
the arrangements that were approved by the Planning Committee on 8
February 2024.
Please find attached the Highway Development Controls comments on all of
the submitted planning application and the stage 1 Road Safety Audit,
whilst the Highway comments do raise initial concerns on the proposals
these comments had been made without seeing sight of the stage 1 road
safety audit that had been carried out.
Following the road safety audit being supplied to Highways this has
alleviated some of our initial concerns and as part of the Section 278
legal agreement required for this development any outstanding highway
concerns will be address within the detailed design process. For ease we
have included in the attached documents a brief list of the type of items
we require before sign off of the proposed Highway changes.
From the information attached, we have removed names and details of
individuals as this would be disclosing personal data to you. The General
Data Protection Regulation 2018, renders such data exempt from disclosure
by virtue of Regulation 12(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations
2004 (“EIR”) read with the provisions of Regulation 13.
It is important to remember that when information is released under the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004, it is considered released to
the wider public. Any such disclosure of personal information would not be
compliant with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulations
2018.
The Council publishes Access to Information requests and responses on its
online Disclosure Log. (Any request included within this log will be
anonymised appropriately)
To view the Council’s Disclosure Log, please visit our website available
here:
[1]The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act | Croydon Council
(disclosure-log.co.uk)
If you are dissatisfied with the way the council has handled your request
under the Environmental Information Regulations you may ask for an
internal review. This should be submitted to us within 40 working days of
this response. You can do this by outlining the details of your complaint
by:
Email: [2][Croydon Borough Council request email]
Writing: Information Team
London Borough of Croydon
Bernard Weatherill House
3^rd Floor - Zone E
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA
Any requests received after the 40 working day time limit will be
considered only at the discretion of the council.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
Croydon Council
References
Visible links
1. https://croydon.disclosure-log.co.uk/
2. mailto:[Croydon Borough Council request email]
Dear Croydon Borough Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Croydon Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Planning application 23/03465/FUL - Highways comments'.
With regard to the Highways Response on 23/03465/FUL [17.10.23], I believe the ‘transport statement’ referred to is in fact the ‘Highways Technical Note’ dated 05.09.23. The quote taken from the submitted document can be found at para 2.8. At Appendix C of that Technical Note is the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit!
I also note that the Highways Response on 21/01208/FUL [21.04.21] includes the following:
"The proposals show vehicles egressing the site and turning right onto Arkwright Road, this arrangement raises concern by Highways, it is appreciated that a STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT [my emphasis] has been undertaken which recommends cutting back the central island. Highways do not feel this recommendation is acceptable. The central island should be designed to prevent vehicles egressing the site by turning right and a left only arrangement adopted which would require the central island to be redesigned to prevent right turn movement."
I therefore DO NO ACCEPT that any of these comments/objections from Highways were "... made without seeing sight of the stage 1 road safety audit …”.
The copy of the Highways Response on 23/03465/FUL [17.10.23] is incomplete.
+++ Please provide a FULL copy of that Response. [If any officer name is redacted or removed, please explain why that is]
You have so far provided NOTHING in relation to the discussions (between the Highways Department and 'planners') which resulted in this alleged [and very important] change of opinion.
+++ Please provide copies of the information first requested, or confirm that it is not held.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
Yours faithfully,
David White
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
At 5.1, the Officer Report [“OR”] on planning application 21/01208/FUL states “Discussion with internal consultees within the Planning Service including Spatial Planning (Design), Highways and Trees has taken place and is referred to within the report as appropriate.”
NOTE: As I understand it, ‘Highways’ [as in Highways Development] is NOT ‘within the Planning Service' … but the comments from external consultees [listed at para 5.2] do NOT include those now disclosed [dated 21.04.2021], in response to this information request.
8.60 of the OR claimed that “Discussions have been ongoing with both the strategic transport team AND the highways team throughout the assessment of this application and during previous pre-application and withdrawn application (ref: 19/03643/OUT) on this site. Residents’ objections have all been reviewed and discussed further with the TRANSPORT TEAM and the proposed access arrangements are considered to be ACCEPTABLE and of NO DETRIMENT TO HIGHWAY SAFETY …” [my emphasis].
At this stage, the proposal was only for a turn right OUT of the development, about which Highways Development raised concerns, stating that “… The central island should be designed to PREVENT vehicles egressing the site by turning right …” [my emphasis]
When commenting on the same arrangement as part of application 22/04130/FUL, Highways Development labelled it “UNACCEPTABLE and UNSAFE”.
The access arrangement proposed in 23/03465/FUL [as approved by the Planning Committee on 08.02.2024] also includes for a right turn INTO the development which would be a significant, additional manoeuvre still to be considered as part of any Stage 1 Road Safety Audit.
Despite that significant change to an arrangement already considered by the Highway Authority as “unacceptable and unsafe”, at 8.67 the OR states that “NO OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY HIGHWAYS OFFICERS and an acceptable and safe access would be provided for both pedestrians and vehicles.” [my emphasis]
At the subsequent Planning Committee the presenting officer described the proposals as follows:
"...In terms of highways, so there are some s278 works which will be required to the entrance off Arkwright Road and (this) existing roundabout. This had PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED on the 19 unit scheme and also NO OBJECTIONS were raised on the 9 unit scheme....
In terms of (this) existing traffic island, it's proposed to reduce the size of that and increase the hatching to allow vehicles to turn right onto Arkwright Road and also right onto the Site. ..."
Like those before them, the Committee members [the ‘decision-makers’] were cynically and critically misled in this regard.
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
In her response [of 9 April 2024] to a Stage 1 Complaint about the Planning Committee's consideration and decision on 23/03465/FUL, Ms Townsend states that:
"The highway alterations referred to are minor and fall outside of the planning application because they are covered by separate highways legislation.”
Yet according to policy DM29(b) of the Local Plan, in order "to promote sustainable growth in Croydon … DEVELOPMENT SHOULD …. HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT AND MUST NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and private vehicles”.
On that basis, it seems clear that the highway alterations that would be NECESSARY to provide access to this development ARE a material PLANNING consideration … and that this is yet another attempt by officers to ‘mislead’.
Elsewhere in her response and despite what has now been disclosed here, Ms Townsend continues to argue that:
"Highways officers ... consider the proposed road alterations and highways impacts to be acceptable. .... Officers are satisfied that the proposal would not result in harm to pedestrians or other road users and that there would be safe access and egress ...."
Of course, we have no idea of who these ‘officers’ are, or in what ‘team’ they are located. What we DO know is that all the available evidence indicates that officers in Highways Development do not share their views, and instead consider these access proposals to be 'UNACCEPTABLE AND UNSAFE', and have done so for at least three years!
Dear Mr David White,
Further to your email dated 16 April 2024, in which you requested an
Internal Review of the Council’s response to your request for information
made under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), I have now
concluded this review and I am able to reply as follows.
In your request for Internal Review, you asked the Council to reconsider
your request as you believed that you had not been provided with the
information requested.
In your request for information dated 14 February 2024 you requested the
following information:
“Having been consulted on the access proposals submitted under planning
application 22/04130/FUL, on 11 November 2022 'Highways Development’
responded as follows:
“… The details supporting the access and parking arrangement [sic] are
considered unacceptable. …. The proposal to narrow the central island on
Arkwright Road to enable vehicles to turn right from the access road onto
Arkwright Road is consider [sic] UNACCEPTABLE and UNSAFE. Narrowing the
island could encourage vehicles to turn right into the site from Arkwright
Road which is also considered UNACCEPTABLE. It is the opinion of highways
that the ISLAND SHOULD BE EXTENDED, and signage used to prevent vehicles
turning right and only enable vehicles to turn left and follow the one way
working of the highway layout. ..." [emphasis added]
We are told that the access proposals for 23/03465/FUL are unchanged. On
2 February, I emailed Highways Development and asked (a) whether (or not)
they still considered the proposal to narrow the traffic island
"unacceptable and unsafe", and (b) whether it was still their opinion that
the island should be extended, to prevent vehicles turning right, both out
of AND onto the Site.
In answer to my queries, on 7 February a 'Senior Highways Engineer'
(Nathan Evans) told me "... HAVING DISCUSSED THE SCHEME WITH PLANNERS, the
option currently proposed which allows vehicles to turn right is a
potential solution which could be implemented .... Recommendations to
retain the one-way system have also been put forward and this option could
also be implemented. Both are options which have been discussed internally
and are VIABLE ...". [emphasis added]
The following evening, the Planning Committee were advised by the case
officer that "In terms of (the) existing traffic island, it's proposed to
reduce the size of that and increase the hatching to allow vehicles to
turn right onto Arkwright Road and also right onto the Site.". The
Council's Head of Development Management (Nicola Townsend) added that "
The highway proposals are the same as we have seen in the two previous
applications. We have had discussions with our ‘highways team’ who have
confirmed that the modifications are viable options.".
Residents are concerned that even if these proposals may now be considered
'viable', that does NOT guarantee that they would be SAFE [for all highway
users], if/when implemented.
+++ Please provide copies of any information relating to those discussions
(between the Highways Department and 'planners') which resulted in the
apparent [and very important] change of opinion.
+++ Please provide a copy of any Road Safety Audit (any stage) covering
the arrangements that were 'approved' by the Planning Committee on 8
February 2024.
I am now very concerned about the Council's attitude toward
ensuring/maintaining the safety of highway users.”
The Council responded to you on the 15 April 2024 and provided the
following response:
“Please find attached the Highway Development Controls comments on all of
the submitted planning application and the stage 1 Road Safety Audit,
whilst the Highway comments do raise initial concerns on the proposals
these comments had been made without seeing sight of the stage 1 road
safety audit that had been carried out.
Following the road safety audit being supplied to Highways this has
alleviated some of our initial concerns and as part of the Section 278
legal agreement required for this development any outstanding highway
concerns will be address within the detailed design process. For ease we
have included in the attached documents a brief list of the type of items
we require before sign off of the proposed Highway changes.
From the information attached, we have removed names and details of
individuals as this would be disclosing personal data to you. The General
Data Protection Regulation 2018 renders such data exempt from disclosure
by virtue of Regulation 12(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations
2004 (“EIR”) read with the provisions of Regulation 13.
It is important to remember that when information is released under the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004, it is considered released to
the wider public. Any such disclosure of personal information would not be
compliant with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulations
2018.”
In your request for an Internal Review dated 16 April 2024, you stated the
following:
“With regard to the Highways Response on 23/03465/FUL [17.10.23], I
believe the ‘transport statement’ referred to is in fact the ‘Highways
Technical Note’ dated 05.09.23. The quote taken from the submitted
document can be found at para 2.8. At Appendix C of that Technical Note
is the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit!
I also note that the Highways Response on 21/01208/FUL [21.04.21] includes
the following:
"The proposals show vehicles egressing the site and turning right onto
Arkwright Road, this arrangement raises concern by Highways, it is
appreciated that a STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT [my emphasis] has been
undertaken which recommends cutting back the central island. Highways do
not feel this recommendation is acceptable. The central island should be
designed to prevent vehicles egressing the site by turning right and a
left only arrangement adopted which would require the central island to be
redesigned to prevent right turn movement."
I therefore DO NO ACCEPT that any of these comments/objections from
Highways were "... made without seeing sight of the stage 1 road safety
audit …”.
The copy of the Highways Response on 23/03465/FUL [17.10.23] is
incomplete.
+++ Please provide a FULL copy of that Response. [If any officer name is
redacted or removed, please explain why that is]
You have so far provided NOTHING in relation to the discussions (between
the Highways Department and 'planners') which resulted in this alleged
[and very important] change of opinion.
+++ Please provide copies of the information first requested or confirm
that it is not held.”
On receiving your request for an Internal Review, I contacted the Highway
Development Control Manager, who has provided additional information in
answer to the issues raised in your Internal Review.
I have been informed that copy of the Highways Response (23/03465/FUL,
dated 17 October 2023) is complete (Page 4 of the document provided to
you.)
A further meeting was held to address issues that you had raised in a
separate email dated 2 February 2024. I am given to understand that the
Highways Service, sent you a response directly to the issues that you had
raised.
If you are not content with the outcome of the Internal Review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely,
Howard Passman
020 8726 6000 ext. 27103
Resources Directorate
Legal Services Division
12th Floor
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA
Council services, online, 24/7 www.croydon.gov.uk/myaccount.
Please use this web site address to view the council's e-mail disclaimer -
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/email-disclaimer
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
So who is the Highway Development Control Manager and who do they report to, engineer or 'planner'?
Is this the same person who came up with the ridiculous spiel that the 'Highways Development's comments on the submitted planning applications were made "without seeing sight of the stage 1 road safety audit"? [I note that that Mr Passman makes no comment on the matter]
Does anyone believe that page 4 of the document provided is the 'complete' response from Highways Development on planning application 23/03465/FUL? If it's true, does anyone [else] think that they just might have been 'got at'?
Can we take it then, that there is in fact NO EVIDENCE that explains why officers in Highways Development ALLEGEDLY made this very important 'U-turn'?
Will this important issue be taken into account by Ms Townsend if/when finally granting permission on 23/03465/FUL, and/or by the planning inspector when considering the appeal on 22/04130/FUL ?
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
I now note that the latest Highways Response [on planning application 23/03465/FUL] includes that “This application proposes to extend the existing crossover to a length of 4.8m.”, presumably because that is what is IMPLIED in the text of the applicant’s ‘Transport Statement’.
But the drawing attached to that Statement [1809018 -TK17C] shows not “a simple crossover”, but a large bell-mouth junction. THIS [or something very similar] has in fact been the proposed access arrangement for the development of this Site since February 2021**, perhaps earlier.
** Drawings 1809018 -TK11 and 1809018 -TK12 can be found in Appendix H of the ‘Transport Statement’ [05.02.21] submitted as part of planning application 21/01208/FUL.
At the back of footway, the proposed access road in fact measures over 5m and when it meets the kerb line has reached around 11m wide.
Such an arrangement is necessary to provide access [and egress] for refuse collection vehicles, albeit in a manner which officers in ‘Highways Development’ have previously deemed to be “UNACCEPTABLE AND UNSAFE”.
It would be very interesting to see what the rest of that latest Response says [and who exactly said it], and I do hope that the Information Commissioner is asked to help uncover that.
I would also like to know who could/would be held to account if/when something 'goes wrong' here, with regard to highway safety.
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
The Decision Notice on 23/03465/FUL has now been issued and the associated s106 agreement published. Schedule 3 of that agreement covers the required s278 Agreement.
2.4 of the s278 states that the works encompassed in the Agreement “shall be in broad accordance with the works indicated on Plan 2 attached”. Plan 2 consists of copy of the approved Highways Technical Note (5 September 2023), which includes drawings indicating a REDUCTION of the traffic island on Arkwright Road, to enable right turns out of AND into the site.
To backtrack, in April 2021 ‘Highways Development’ [for the Highway Authority] had commented as follows regarding the access arrangements proposed in planning application 21/01208/FUL:
“…The proposals … show modifications to a central island on Arkwright Road to enable right turning vehicles to egress the site.
… it is felt that a banned right turn from the site onto Arkwright Road supported by a modified design of the central island to prevent right turns would be a safer option.
…. The terms of the section 278 agreement would include:
1. To redesign the central island on Arkwright Road to prevent right turning vehicles including landscaping, drainage and lighting.
2. To introduce a right turn ban from the access road.
3. To make traffic regulation orders to support the right turn ban. …”
So at THAT point, the Highway Authority wanted the traffic island EXTENDED and a RIGHT TURN BAN.
When commenting on 22/04130/FUL, in November 2022 Highways Development described the SAME access arrangements as ‘unacceptable and unsafe’.
At THAT point, it was STILL “the opinion of highways that the island should be extended, and signage used to prevent vehicles turning right and only enable vehicles to turn left and follow the one way working of the highway layout. Details of how the island is designed needs to be agreed between the developer and highways before highways can agree to this application. Until this agreement has been reached highways will consider this application to be unacceptable. ...”.
The Planning Committee on 8 February 2024 were told that the access arrangements now approved as part of 23/03465/FUL , are the SAME as those in the two earlier schemes. In fact they are even WORSE, since they now FORMALLY include right turns INTO the site [enabled by that REDUCTION in the traffic island] as well as right turns out!
So how is it that the Highway Authority is now apparently content with these proposals? WHO is it that has now ‘approved’ this access arrangement on behalf of the Authority … and WHY? Were they pushed, or pulled do you think?
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()
If you want an example of how Development Management put QUANTUM above all else, including public safety [and sustainability generally], this is it.
For three applications [21/01208/FUL, 22/04130/FUL, 23/03465/FUL] Highways officers have been shouting UNSAFE, but their colleagues in ‘Planning’ have chosen not to hear.
Given that the quote from the Highways Technical Note only refers to a right turn OUT onto Arkwright Road, I do wonder if the anonymous Highways officer is aware that the proposal also includes right turns INTO the development, courtesy of that reduced traffic island. Because THAT is the arrangement shown on drawing 1809018-TK23 and approved by the Planning Committee.
Within the site, we can also now see [for the first time I believe] that Highways officers have considered from the outset that there could be ‘conflict between vehicles and pedestrians’ along the long and narrow, shared access drive. How typical [and disturbing] to see how Ms Cheesbrough’s ‘transport planners’ appear to have taken a different view, by saying nothing about it.