Planning – Application Comments

Consultation Date: Thu 23 Mar 2023

Consultation Date: Thu 23 Mar 2023

Comment Date: Wed 12 Apr 2023

Having reviewed the plans submitted for this Non-Material Amendment application and compared them to the plans approved under application number 22/00129/FUL, I would wish to comment as follows:

' Whilst I have no objections to the level of visitor cycle parking provided (through the provision of Sheffield type stands), some consideration should be given to providing some cover to an element of this visitor provision (at present most of the visitor cycle parking would seem to be 'open to the elements').

' Where are the secure cycle parking spaces located for employees working within units 4, 5 and 6? This isn't clear from the drawings provided? I would also add that visitor cycle parking serving units 4 and 5 should be provided closer to the entrance to the building (as per the requirements of the JLP SPD).

' Wheeling ramps should be provided next to any flights of steps which link back to proposed cycle infrastructure (if level access cannot be provided).

' Where bollards are provided at the back of the zebra crossings, a minimum gap of 1.5m should be provided between them in order to allow for cycle access.

' I would highlight that the LHA still have some concerns regarding the safety of the exit from the service road onto the A386 and are currently awaiting receipt of an RSA relating to such.

' The zebra crossings provided on the central access road should be designed to the appropriate standard which includes necessary road markings and belisha beacons.

' Could the applicant please confirm that the existing bus shelter at the layby stop on the A386 will remain in its' current location and is not due to be relocated? I would also add that there is no requirement for a bus shelter at the new bus stop on the central access road (northbound services).

' The LHA are still awaiting an RSA in relation to the design of the shared space area/roundabout at the northern end of the central access route.

' The tracking plans provided for HGV's accessing the eastern area of development for servicing clearly shows that such vehicles have to manoeuvre onto the opposite side of the roundabout at the shared space area and would also restrict access into and out of the car parking area whilst deliveries/collections are being made. This would seem to suggest that deliveries for these units could only take place safely outside of the traditional opening hours (either early morning or later evening).

' It is a relatively small point of detail, but customers using the proposed northern-most trolley bay in the western area of development (adjacent to the pedestrian/cycle route) would have to push trolleys over a block sett band of paving in order to access the trolley bay.

' It should be noted that types of paving proposed to be used within the adopted highway are still being reviewed as part of the Section 38 technical approval process.

Subject to confirmation that the comments made above are addressed through either through the determination of this application or through the Section 38 technical approval process, I would then be in a position to recommend in support of this application.

Comment Date: Fri 31 Mar 2023

2300400AMD Seaton District Centre.pdf