Shoot Planning Applications

[mjr]

Locally, we have some great planning policies about transport and prioritising walking and cycling and providing safe and convenient access and even providing a minimum number of secure, convenient and wide-ish cycle parking spaces for each building type, on top of all the recent national planning policy framework stuff on sustainable transport, the updated Cycling Infrastructure Design book (LTN 1/20) and the new "Gear Change"-inspired network management instructions.

It doesn't seem to matter. Developers propose shoot and officers agree to shoot.

Here's a colour-coded plan proposed for a new local NHS GP surgery (St James, King's Lynn), with Norfolk and Waveney Clinical Commissioning Group "fully supporting" it:

The junction bottom left has no crossing for the bike lane, which is NCN1. The developer doesn't own enough land for a current standard junction design (such as CYCLOPS) to be built there. Officers were discussing dropped kerbs and other outdated crap, which I think is similar to the A316 Richmond bike lane that has an awful crash and death record. I am pretty sure that this should be reason for refusal on highway safety grounds alone, but the officers only recommend a condition on the approval to agree a safe layout. My alarm bells are ringing. They don't consult us on the post-approval layout changes and it's a devil's own job to get dangerous shoot fixed after it's built. We've seen this before and every time, the motorist-centred auditors have compromised the safety of walkers and riders

And then the cycling/walking access to the site is obstructed by a tree, then crosses between parked cars without priority. The cycle parking is shoved up the side of the building, away from the entrance (and a long way from the staff entrance at the rear) but where it can still be easily raided by thieves with a van who could park close to it. There are about half the number of cycle parking spaces required by policy standards, and they're too small. The cycle parking might be fixable with a condition on the approval, but the crap access should be a reason for refusal because it requires a site layout change. Instead, the officers recommend a condition requiring the layout to be built as drawn!

So the planning officers have recommended approval at Monday's meeting, saying some of it doesn't matter and the rest can be fixed afterwards and it seems to fall to the local cycling campaign volunteers to try to fix this shoot. If it can be fixed.

And this shoot is from the NHS, who have their own NICE Guideline 90 telling everyone not to do this shoot any more.



In the spirit of "misery loves company", have you seen worse near you? Either actually built, or planned with recommendation to approve. And you'll get bonus happy points if you know any plans where councillors overturned the recommendation and sent it back to the drawing board.

 

[tfc03]

I have a lot of sympathy, that is pretty awful, especially from the NHS. I have heard folk say this is the one area which is really failing just now, quick path-dependent work from consultants whacking in planning applications and no thought in the Planning Authority to change it. I would also want to know why the building doesn't front the road which would both improve the design and mean peds don't have to walk further and across/ around a car park! This is my personal bugbear of so much modern building, put the car park round the back, and the building actually fronting the street!

In terms of misery loving company, locally my only quiet route out of town now has a 5 armed roundabout on it built as part of a new housing scheme which is so anti-active travel by virtue of its size (why do all the single carriageways have to go to two lanes at the roundabout for example), I am genuinely shocked. Not least by the transport consultant proudly advertising it on their website https://scptransport.co.uk/portfolio_category/residential/

 

[Badger_Boom]

Sounds like it needs/needed a detailed objection sertting out why it's a dangerously poor option with reference to planning law and highway design best practice guidance. The only way these things get rejected is if you can demonstrate non compliance

 

[mjr]

Couple of points of info:

I would also want to know why the building doesn't front the road which would both improve the design and mean peds don't have to walk further and across/ around a car park! This is my personal bugbear of so much modern building, put the car park round the back, and the building actually fronting the street!

The road is a road (in the Strong Towns sense), a 40mph originally-a-bypass A road built decades ago so that docks HGV+abnormal traffic doesn't have to go through the old fishing quarter and then either part of the historic old town (with both listed buildings and an air quality problem) or through a village centre (with both again). It's straight, with a wide "clear zone" (called a "dead zone" before people noticed the problem of it being where people are encouraged to walk and cycle) and buildings back behind hedges, walls, fences or at least drainage ditches. Nothing fronts the road until a slight rise, a junction and a drop in speed limit to 30mph.

I agree that it should front the road if it's going to be developed into a street, but that requires more work and there's precedent for allowing buildings to be set back on that section, so it's a difficult argument and I've my hands full arguing against two terrible flaws already.

(why do all the single carriageways have to go to two lanes at the roundabout for example),

I believe it is usually an attempt to squeeze some extra car unit capacity through the junction (and they don't care enough about the reduction in people walking and cycling), or sometimes it is to move some motorists away from the kerb because that's where noise and air pollution is normally measured. It's another tragedy of targets having unintended consequences.

 

[mjr]

Sounds like it needs/needed a detailed objection sertting out why it's a dangerously poor option with reference to planning law and highway design best practice guidance. The only way these things get rejected is if you can demonstrate non compliance

We are arguing non-compliance but in the past, we often get simply overruled because the county council highways officer won't object, thanks to an irrational-based-on-my-experience confidence in the Highways Act Section 278 design process (which normally has no public or stakeholder consultation).

 

[Drago]

Designing out and mitigating against crime "should be a core principle in designing any new development".

Object on the grounds that the cycle parking is clearly an afterthought, and should be in an area that has good natural surveillance, ie, not shoved out the way where sheet bags can work unbserved, and should be as conveneient to access as the car parking provision.

Insist to be told whether of not they have sought the guidance of the councils designing out crime advisor and, if they have, why they are clearly ignoring their advice.

 

[mjr]

Insist to be told whether of not they have sought the guidance of the councils designing out crime advisor and, if they have, why they are clearly ignoring their advice.

The constabulary do that around here, rather than the councils. I can see on the planning file that they only said "The ‘Cycle & Mobility’ store is indicated on eastern side of the building, which does have some surveillance (from treatment/patient rooms) but ideally the location could benefit from surveillance from more occupied units" along with recommendations for clear walls on the cycle store, 3+mm thick steel bar cycle stands and low-energy lighting after dark. They did not make resiting the store or increasing surveillance a recommendation, or offer any objection that would cause refusal.

For what it's worth, I think they may be wrong about surveillance from treatment rooms because I expect such rooms to be made so people cannot easily look in and ogle patients while parking their bike, using glazing or blinds which will make it more difficult to see out.

It seems usual here that the council parking standards are tougher on designing out bike crime than the local police. Are the police meant to impose any particular requirements? In other words, are our local police MIA even more often than our councils?

 

[Mike_P]

The issue is what is the highway engineer saying as that will be guiding the planning officer in their recommendation. Locally it's quite common for applications to get thrown out by the planning committee on some highway concern despite the highway engineer having no objection and then the proposal to be allowed on appeal.