Planning – Application Comments

Consultation Date: Tue 16 May 2023

Consultation Date: Tue 16 May 2023

Consultation Date: Fri 19 May 2023

Consultation Date: Tue 16 May 2023

Consultation Date: Tue 16 May 2023

Comment Date: Thu 03 Aug 2023

Having reviewed the draft Site Layout Plan I would wish to make the following comments from a LHA viewpoint:

Car Parking
It would be helpful if the applicant could confirm the overall car parking standard being applied to Phases 7 and 8 of Saltram Meadow and how this compares to the car parking standard approved at the outline planning application stage.

Internal dimensions of garages should accord with the standards as set-out within the JLP Development Guidelines SPD. Clarification is also sought in relation to EV charging provision serving the development? It is assumed that such provision will be provided for each property?

Layout
The pedestrian routes shown on the plan (such as the route that runs along the northern boundary of the site) along with the internal north/south connections should all be wide enough to allow for cycle as well as pedestrian use. Where these north-south routes cross vehicular routes, raised table crossings should be introduced so that priority is afforded to pedestrians over vehicles. Such features will also assist in helping to reduce traffic speeds on the longer lengths of internal access roads.

As it is serving more than 5 dwellings, there would be the need for the LHA to adopt the section of block paved road serving plots 150-157. Therefore a suitably dimensioned turning area (large enough to accommodate turning for a refuse vehicle) should be provided within the vicinity of plots 152-153. Whilst it looks as though some turning provision has been created within the vicinity of plots 155-156, it is likely that occupiers of these units would park directly outside their properties, thereby preventing this area from being used for turning.

With the road being a relatively short shared surface block paved street, I would question the need for the short lengths of footway outside plots 87 and 91. A short section of block paved path could be provided from the road (outside plot 82) in order to create the link through to the northern footway/pedestrian route.

Why has the pedestrian route been extended across the row of car parking spaces adjacent to plot 138 but not across the row of spaces adjacent to plots 162/163? This comment applies in a number of other locations throughout the development (plots 110-112, 118-120 etc).

The shared space block paved road serving plots 17-21 and 33-37 looks particularly wide and could be narrowed. Consideration could be given to rotating the angle of the car parking spaces top echelon in order to further tighten-up this space and introduce some street planting/trees. It would be good if we could get some more pedestrian priority through this space.

If the units 1-12 have internal garages, then it is essential that the driveways in front of those garages are a minimum of 6m in length. Currently the driveways shown look less than 6m.

Use of the car parking spaces in front of units 22-27 would result in vehicles having to reverse directly back into junction. This should be avoided and the layout amended to address this comment.

I do not see the need for the on-street parking bays provided on the southern side of the southern access road. However if visitor spaces are required along this road then why haven't they been provided along the entire length of the street?
In view of the colour difference on the layout plan, can I still assume that the road serving plots 106-127 will still be block paved?

The priority movement should be pedestrians and cyclists where the north/south route crosses the shared surface street at plots 109/110 and 120/121.

The pedestrian/cycle north/south route adjacent to plots 232/233 needs to safely cross the road in order to tie-in with the route shown on the southern side of Main Street. This comment also applies to the other north-south pedestrian route adjacent to plots 12 and 238.

With the access drive remaining in private ownership/control, what are the planned servicing arrangements (refuse collection etc) for plots 195 to 200?

The alignment of the carriageway outside plots 189/190 is such that it could lead to vehicles coming into conflict with one another. One possible solution would be to create an enlarged shared space in this area, with the introduction of a block paved raised table. Swept-paths should be undertaken in order to inform the design/layout here.

Comment Date: Fri 09 Jun 2023

23 06 09_2300594MJR NI Response.pdf

Comment Date: Wed 07 Jun 2023

Saltram EDG23.001-FRSR-008.pdf