2. From a resident of Cuckoo Lane
To: Jon Woodward
Development Control Division
Liverpool City Council
Subject: Resident Objection to 15F/0516
Dear Mr Woodward,
I would like to formally object to the current proposals by Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd. My objection centres on the proposed site layout, highway safety and the sustainable accessibility of the site. I do also have concerns regarding the contaminated land on the site. I believe that the site does not conform to several local and national planning policies.
I would like to make it clear that I am very much pro-development and want to see the site developed for residential use. I also realise that Liverpool City Council (LCC) need to make money by 'selling-off' some of its assets and I am well-aware of the need for a five year housing supply as part of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, I feel that the proposed layout has been ill- conceived and clearly LCC and the developer are attempting to maximise their profits but I believe in such a way that is detrimental to the local area by over-developing the site.
The evidence for my objection is as follows:
Site Layout and Access
In terms of highway access for any residential development, there is a balance between providing a 'permeable' site and overdesigning. The provision of 7 accesses for a 200 dwelling site is clearly overdesigning. There is no justification from a highways perspective to provide more than three accesses, one to each of the roads that bound the site. I feel that the provision of five accesses off Cuckoo Lane is not in-keeping with the ethos of the Manual for Streets (MfS) design principles of not overdesigning, designing streets around the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users rather than cars, which in turn enhances safety, and inclusive design that recognises the needs of people of all ages and abilities. Cuckoo Lane is a residential collector road, not a more strategic local distributor such as Gateacre Park Drive. Introducing five accesses will be detrimental to pedestrians, as it will introduce five conflict points where pedestrians walking along the northern side of Cuckoo Lane will have to stop and look for vehicles when crossing each of these accesses; at the moment there are no conflict points on this site of the road at the site frontage. I believe that this introduction of five conflict points is contrary to bullet point three of para 35 of the NPPF which states that developments should be located and designed where practical to 'create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians'. Whilst the internal layout will conform to this, the access strategy will not.
When attending the developer's public consultation event, I was told that the reason for providing these five accesses was to maintain the views down the valley, but I feel this can be achieved by reconfiguring the layout. Furthermore, the land required for these five access roads, each one having a cross-section width of 11.5m, could be given over to some public open space which I will mention later. I also feel that the site should include additional pedestrian accesses, particularly onto Grange Lane, but the number of vehicular accesses is clearly excessive.