CUT AND PASTE OBJECTIONS TO USE IF YOU WISH - OBJECTIONS FOR WARREN RD ACCESS

It is that time where every objection letter counts. We have been fighting for 2 years and your objection letters are needed and make a difference. Remember to put your name and address on the email or letter to ensure it is valid. Ask everyone in your household to object if they wish. Thanks so much, Julie Email to: planapps@westberks.gov.uk Or mail to : Planning Department, West Berkshire Council, Council Offices, Market St, Newbury RG14 5LD OBJECTIONS TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS 18/00764/OUTMAJ AND 18/00828/OUTMAJ: These applications are in clear contravention of the Supplementary Planning Document which requires proposals for the site to be by means of a single planning application. These planning applications are in outline with the masterplan being indicative. A subsequent application could see the plans changed to other uses. Reserved matters do not allow for a co-ordinated approach to planning. CS3 Core Strategy states that Warren Rd is a sustainable transport link. The SPD amends this to buses and removes pedestrians and cyclists. The “Council wishes to explore the potential for an all vehicle access through Warren Rd and access onto the A339 to assess the comparative effects of traffic flows from the site onto the surrounding highway network” (Hilary Cole, Executive Meeting 3 May 18) . A “high level decision had been taken at WBC that the Warren Road access would be required” (Boyer letter 30 Mar 16). SPDs escape the examination process required within Development Plan Documents and must not conflict with the adopted Development Plan. This SPD is straying into Local Plan territory with the introduction of the all vehicular Warren Rd access and is leaving West Berkshire Council open to being legally challenged. There needs to be a thorough, satisfactory investigation undertaking ALL required audits and full traffic models (including traffic from all sensitive receptors externally and internally of the Development) and a plan of the Warren Road/Andover Rd junction including FULL and DETAILED traffic and pedestrian modelling and measurements of the Warren Road/Andover Rd junction (passed by the Highways Dept) PRIOR to considering the approval of any planning application containing the Warren Rd access. Hilary Cole, Executive Meeting 3 May 18 states that “significant modelling has been done and if our Highways Team were not satisfied with that modelling it would not be being put forward as an alternative access”. At present, only Highways England have officially responded on the WBC planning portal, asking for various traffic data yet to be provided. Recent Highways response dated 6 Feb 17 OFF-SITE MITIGATION MEASURES – “This results in a severe impact in a number of locations”. Mr Goddard, Highways, Planning Policy Task Group 31 May 13 – “If Warren Rd access was chosen up to 46% of Sandleford Traffic would use it during peak periods”. He also stated that it would provide a more direct route to the A34 that would encourage more avoidance of the town centre. Sandleford Park West – ES Vol1, Chapter 6, Transport and Access table 6.7 states that in 2031 the average annual daily traffic after development (AADT) for A343 Andover Rd (South of Roundabout) will be 18811 compared with the A339 dual carriageway (North of Bear Lane roundabout) with an AADT of 12733. It is obvious that the traffic is being pushed to travel through a residential areas towards the A34, away from local business, and a solution is needed. These planning applications plan to build the majority of housing on the west side of the development bridge which will only make matters worse in an area that is the hub of the Wash Common community and has many sensitive receptors. The A343 is classed as a key A road, with the A339 being classed as a Primary Route Network, leading to both Basingstoke and the larger Tot Hill A34 junction with HGV facilities and longer slip roads. Is it suggested that the Key A road should be the road with a significantly greater AADT than a road within the Primary Route Network? In this case, it is something that should be addressed for the safety of non-motorised road users. The Department of Transport Manual for Streets states that movement is a key function but “place function is more important”. The ES Vol 1, Transport and Access, Net Impact Assessment results Table 6.11, sees Warren Road net impact assessment and the traffic impact of the development, which also indicates the sensitivity of receptors, as “Major”. The Warren Road is the proposed access road but not necessarily the place where the greatest impact will be felt to the existing highway in terms of traffic and pedestrian vulnerability. The current accident rate on the stretch of the Andover Rd surrounding the Warren Rd junction is approx one per year and this cannot be categorised as “negligible” (ES Vol 1, Para 6.5.22). The fact that the Andover Road (south of Budgens roundabout) has not been assessed in the Transport and Access assessments would greatly affect the overall sensitivity assessment gradings and the significance of effect. The pursuance of the Warren Rd Access by West Berkshire Council, without consideration of the viability impact, would result in the SPD clearly imposing development management policy against which an application could be refused (or conditions imposed). Jenny Graham, Transport Policy Team Leader states (1 Dec 16) “issues… dealt with in the final submission of the Travel Plan which could be conditioned so this would not be the basis for a further reason for refusal”. By approving a planning application regarding the Warren Rd Access with reserved matters, especially when a working plan has been unachievable within the last 2 years, is without consideration of these impacts and is UNLAWFUL. The signed MOU is not legally binding and is unenforceable eg, “use reasonable endeavours to deliver construction”. The title “Landowners’ Agreement” is vague and not clear as to whether this is legally binding and whether it would allow West Berkshire Council to take further action if required. Currently, the applications fail to consider the impact of the development on key pedestrian routes around the local schools and churches external to Sandleford. Where there would be physical changes to the network, schemes must be submitted to road safety, environmental and non-motorised user audit procedures, as well as any other assessment appropriate to the proposed development and the public given an opportunity to comment. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges sets out details of the Secretary of State's requirements for access, design and audit, with which proposals must conform. The Access and Movement SP06E dated 11 Apr 18 is not accurate in its buildings. An extension (not shown) built on the corner of a residential building at the junction of Andover Road/Warren Road would affect the visibility splay when approaching Andover Road from Warren Road. The protected trees and hedgerow of Warren Rd frames the historic route across from Andover Road to Newtown Road (evident with trees along it in the historic maps by Rocque 1761 and Willis 1768) and also links into the tree line east of Warren Road. This would result in a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The existing trees provide a significant skyline feature and the hedgerow provides visual green buffer at street level. The historic route would be lost to accommodate the proposed access onto the A343. The application fails to provide an appropriate scheme of works or off site mitigation measures to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Moreover, in some instances the highway mitigation proposed by the applicants reduces the existing pedestrian and cyclists facilities, in particular around the Warren Rd/Andover Road junction, a high density area, where vulnerable road users including many children are attending Falkland and Park House Schools. Roads are being widened and the safety buffers of grass verges reduced in an area of narrow pavements. The proposed plans make no reference to reduced shared pedestrian/cycle paths in bus bays where students gather in groups, nor where extra traffic lanes will bring increased risk to non-motorised road users. Existing pavements are old, partial to flooding and are not uniform in size nor straight. There is only one set of traffic lights on the plan opposite Falkland School but it does not address the problem of pedestrians crossing the proposed 3 lane Warren Rd from Andover Road South trying to access Park House School or other local facilities. It also does not comment on synchronisation with the other traffic lights on the Andover Road, opposite Park House School Entrance. Pavement widths in Warren Road and at the junction of Warren Road/Andover Road should meet at least the minimum sustainable measures afforded to the Sandleford Development. In Warren Road there are also breaks in pavement at the 4.8m width and no means of crossing the road to continue into Sandleford or to the new Park House playing field. This is also important as the closest bus stop from the apparently sustainable Sandleford is 400m outside of the development using this access road (referred to in the ES Vol, 6.2.12). Sandleford is surrounded by hills on all sides so does not lend itself to cycling. Warren Road Access Plans fails to mention that it includes Newbury 5 PUBLIC FOOTPATH non-motorised vehicles only, which has no accompanying vehicular rights of access noted on the Definitive Map. Motorised vehicles have no right to use this Public Footpath without these access rights. A modification order should be submitted prior to work commencing and the general public given the opportunity to object in line with correct procedures. The 4.8m road width plan of the Warren Road access does not have sufficient pavement widths to meet the 2m criteria throughout, in line with the Manual for Streets and should therefore be rejected. The Warren Rd access will be the only access road for at least 6 yrs (awaiting the building of the connecting bridge IF built) serving up to 1000 houses (Western and Central Parcels). What will stop the Developers from using the Warren Road as a haul route to build the central parcel and therefore negating the need for a bridge? These outline intentions are contained in the MOU which as before may not be legally or contractually binding. The available construction haul routes fail to provide a safe environment around sensitive receptors both internally and externally of the development. There have been no restrictions set within an extended working day to consider local children travelling to school and there is no way of enforcing restrictions to numbers of HGVs and other construction traffic with 2 developers working each to their own plans. The lack of Haul Route fails “to improve and promote opportunities for healthy and safe travel” (Local Transport Plan 2 for West Berkshire). AS SANDLEFORD HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE 5 YEAR PLAN, THE SANDLEFORD DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL THERE IS A SAFE HAUL ROUTE IN PLACE.