Design and Access Statement for a Housing Development at The ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Page 1 k . v u w â a â . C.. M fnv; \ Ã 9 `_ V. â.1 . . .Il .\ n Â¿l /S @q .l n Y lr ...$

A s s e s s m e n t d e s i g n a n d a c c e s s s t a t e m e n t Involvement Layout Options 1 (top) and 2 (bottom) 1 st Pre Application Response: The council provided a brief pre-application response to Options 1 and 2, which can be summarised as follows: • generally supportive of the principal of residential development and conversion of the pub • new houses should defer in scale to the pub, meaning a 2-storey limit • houses design could take some cues from features of the pub • all plots need sufficient amenity space • two plots west of the pub is more in keeping with the surroundings • the house east of the pub needs to address the road more, perhaps using a wider frontage or dog-leg design • shared access for plot 3 and the pub likely to be preferred, in location of current pub access. • highway authority concern with new access off Main Street for plots 1 and 2 (option 2) (regarding visibility to the east, past the pub) H o u s i n g , W a g g o n & H o r s e s , B r i n s l e y 7
A s s e s s m e n t d e s i g n a n d a c c e s s s t a t e m e n t 2 nd Pre Application Response: Layout Options 3 (top) and 4 (bottom) The difficulty of achieving a safe access west of the pub forced the consideration of a single access serving the whole site, via the existing access. This is shown on Options 3 and 4 (opposite) that were submitted to the Council for further discussion). The main difference in the options is the provision of 1 or 2 houses east of the pub. The Council’s initial response was that options 1 and 2 were preferable, largely because of the reduced hardstanding they showed because of having two access points. However, following further discussion with the highway officer it has been accepted that it is impractical to serve the western half of the site in any other way than as shown in options 3 and 4. These options resulting in a shared driveway crossing over the public footpath. The Public Rights of Way officer advised: “The only permission needed in order to drive vehicles over the public footpath is that of the landowner and therefore there are no specific steps to take as the right of way is not going to be diverted. As the access road only serves 2 properties I do not have a concern about conflict between vehicles and pedestrians because the number of times that vehicles will be crossing the path will me minimal. The surface should be level throughout so that the public are not inconvenienced. If necessary, once the development is complete footpath signs might be installed either side of the access road to indicate that the public have a right to cross over to continue on the footpath. The footpath should be open and available for safe public use during construction. If public access does need to be restricted at any time during construction the developer should apply for a temporary closure.” H o u s i n g , W a g g o n & H o r s e s , B r i n s l e y 8
Page 1 and 2: Introduction Assessment Purpose 1 P
Page 3 and 4: A s s e s s m e n t d e s i g n a n
Page 5 and 6: A s s e s s m e n t d e s i g n a n
Page 7: A s s e s s m e n t d e s i g n a n
Page 11 and 12: D e s i g n d e s i g n a n d a c c
Page 13 and 14: D e s i g n d e s i g n a n d a c c
Page 15: d e s i g n a n d a c c e s s s t a

Design and Access Statement for a Housing Development at The ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?