Planning – Application Comments

Consultation Date: Wed 24 Apr 2024

Comment Date: Tue 02 Apr 2024

The proposals are part-retrospective and relate to the construction of a built-up hardstanding with new vehicle access proposed from Kirkwall Road. The Local Highway Authority would object in principle to the proposed development due to the detriment to the street trees adjacent to the new proposed access.

When considering the application and the potential impacts the new vehicle crossing could impose on the adjacent street trees, the LHA are mindful of the guidance included in paragraphs 13.77, 7.151 and 7.153 of the SPD. To summarise, this guidance states that:

- Proposals need to be considered carefully to ensure there is no negative impact on residential
amenity, safety and environmental grounds as well as the character and attractiveness of the
street.
- Trees play a critical role in providing a visual contribution in the Plan Area as well as contributing
to tackling climate change via absorbing carbon dioxide, aiding in natural drainage and helping to
improve air quality amongst other positive affects.
- New development should be designed to create harmony between retained trees and built
structures. Layout designs should allow enough space laterally and vertically for trees to achieve
their final full crown form without extensive tree surgery works and wherever possible, existing
trees should be retained in areas of communal land and/or public open space.

In addition, paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also states that 'trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change'. It also states that new streets should be tree lined and that existing trees should be retained wherever possible.

The 2x street trees adjacent to the proposed vehicle crossing are located within the public highway and are therefore considered highway infrastructure. As stated within the above-mentioned policies, the trees contribute positively to the public amenity in the street, as well as helping towards managing the effects of climate change. Therefore, their retention is paramount.

It is considered that the works required to facilitate a vehicle crossing in this location would pose a certain detriment to the health of the trees due to the limited level of clearance between the proposed hard paved area and the root protection area of the trees. There are concerns that the introduction of a hard paved crossing could result in long term damage to the trees, leading to their decline and eventual loss which would be contrary to national and local planning policy.

The LHA would strongly recommend that the Natural Infrastructure team is consulted over the proposals in order for an expert opinion over the potential impacts of the proposed development on the street trees is obtained. Furthermore, Network Management have been consulted over the proposals and have also expressed concerns over the potential detriment to the street trees and have requested that colleagues in Natural Infrastructure be consulted.

In terms of the proposed hardstand, the LHA consider that the submitted details are insufficient to allow an accurate assessment of the proposals to be undertaken. However, when considering the proportions and dimensions provided, it would appear that the hardstand is not of sufficient size to accommodate 2x parked cars.

Due to its abnormal shape and tapered reduction in length and width, the secondary space would fall short of the required off-street parking dimensions and could lead to the overhang of the public highway which is contrary to the SPD and could not be supported. In addition, were 2x cars to be parked within the hardstand, this would leave little clearance to allow safe and suitable access by residents and therefore the proposals are considered impractical if proposing to provide off-street parking for 2x vehicles.

As such, the hardstand is only able to suitably accommodate 1x car. In view of this, the proposed vehicle crossing width is considered overly wide and so would instead be restricted to a single crossing width of 2.7m. Boundary treatment would be required to be erected to the frontage of the shortened section of hardstand (not exceeding 900mm in height) to restrict vehicle movements to the crossing only and prevent the unauthorised override of the public footway and verge.

In conclusion, the LHA would object in principle to the proposed development due to the potential impacts the new vehicle crossing could impose on the adjacent street trees. If the proposals were to be explored further, all of the points raised above should be properly considered. This would include obtaining expert advice on the impacts of the vehicle crossing on the adjacent street trees and therefore it is recommended that Natural Infrastructure colleagues are consulted.


Recommendations:

Support
No objection
No objection subject to appropriate mitigation (as identified below)
Object to application X


The proposed development has been considered in accordance with the Councils current Development Plan Policies and having regard for the National Planning Policy Framework.



Abbie Perry

Transport Planning Officer
Officer authorised to sign on behalf of the
Director for Strategic Planning & Infrastructure

25/03/2024