1 / 68

Garden Street development: Presentation of Objections

Garden Street development: Presentation of Objections. Anthony Rae Garden Street Action Group. Structure of Presentation. Reasons for overwhelming community Objections/ Absence of ‘balance’ Objection 1: Parking Need Objection 2: Scale of Development/ Impact on Conservation Area

frisco
Download Presentation

Garden Street development: Presentation of Objections

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Garden Street development:Presentation of Objections Anthony Rae Garden Street Action Group

  2. Structure of Presentation • Reasons for overwhelming community Objections/ Absence of ‘balance’ • Objection 1: Parking Need • Objection 2: Scale of Development/ Impact on Conservation Area • Objection 3: Impact on Town • Sustainable Grounds for Rejection

  3. Where we start from: the origins of the Garden St scheme • HB Traffic Review 2002. MSCP “not technically or financially viable”: CMBC's transport consultant • But strongly supported in Traffic Review by the developer's lead representative • October 2003: public consultation – 62% support ”to invite private sector to identifymulti-storey car park options at Garden Street”

  4. The origins of the Garden St scheme • Spring 2004: Cabinet approves development opportunity; development brief not consulted on • Spring 2005: second public consultation rejected all 3 private sector options by large majorities and therefore principle of the development • Thereafter NO further CMBC consultation with/information to anyone in Hebden Bridge for 3½ years • September 2008: officers finally attend HB public meeting but say they can't answer questions about the scheme

  5. Overwhelming rejection of the application • 3,399 objections in total • 1726 objections to main application + 1673 to ‘Retaining Wall’ • 116 businesses (95% of survey) object • MP; Ward councillors; Hebden Royd Town Council; parish councils; Civic Trust – all object • Just 8 expressions of support

  6. Multiple roles of Calderdale Council • Site Owner • Promoter of development opportunity • Author of Development Brief • Signatory of Development Agreement • Responsibility for community consultation • Responsibility for parking policy • Responsibility for local economic activity • And Local Planning AuthorityRoles not been separated transparently, or discharged effectively

  7. Absence of ‘Balance’ in report • 58 significant discrepancies identified in Planning Officer’s report: omissions/ inaccuracies/misleading/not balanced - Doc AG1 – submitted 26th September 9am • And then there are all the many Objections not even referred to, let alone responded to! • Council response received 29th Sept 9am Almost all responses not substantive, but do reveal quite contradictory analysis on parking

  8. Objection 1: Parking Need Summary • Parking proposals contrary to planning framework/ PPG13 • Much easier/ immediate alternative means of improving parking – without any cost or disruption

  9. Parking: Where we start from • Extent of parking in a town needs expert consideration - to fit within the planning framework/ PPG13 • Calderdale UDP para.9.16: “Car parking provision is a tool in the management of travel demand and traffic congestion” • Yorkshire Forward: “It’s the number of parking ‘acts’, rather than the number of parking spaces, that’s important”. • Instead Council wants to increases spaces in HB from 398 to 522 = +30%

  10. What is the Developer and Council view? • 1st:There is no need to measure parking need in Hebden Bridge. Surveys haven’t been done; opinion polls will do; need can just be asserted • Consequently developer exaggerates without evidence: “Desperate Need for additional parking” • 2nd: Only response to parking need is to increase the physical number of parking spaces: so from 65 to 160. 95 more spaces in total (public & private): +146%

  11. What is the Developer view? • 3rd: Ignore more expert approach that parking need is met by a careful balance of number of spaces/ price/ length of stay/ segregation by location • Consequences: Too many physical spaces unnecessarily provided – and in this case, a huge scale of associated development - and no management or control of increased car use - contrary to PPG13.

  12. Can parking in HB be improved consistent with planning framework? • Answer: very easily, and immediately. At no cost, & with no development disruption whatsoever • AG has done survey of parking need • Step 1: Significant addition of long stay parking in right location. 29 spaces in Station Road: Available end Nov 2008

  13. How parking in HB can be improved immediately • Step 2: Change management regime at existing Garden Street surface car park: from long stay to medium stay (‘Max stay 6 Hours'). • Frees up 220 hours every weekday for shorter stay shoppers/visitors. Available: immediately • Based on Developer’s own data

  14. All we need is a new car park sign!

  15. How parking in HB can be improved without any development disruption • Step 3: limited number of long stay users (25 cars) displaced from Garden Street can move to Station Road (and +12 in Tan Pit Yards) – total 40 spaces. Available: immediately • Overall Result for Hebden Bridge? An immediate solution achieved by more efficient use of existing facilities. • Major expansion in parking opportunities, to support businesses. This provision would be in excess of demand

  16. How parking in HB can be improved flexibly and sustainably • All consistent with planning framework capable of flexible/easy adjustment • Above all demonstrates that no need for more physical spaces at Garden Street • AG report Aug 2008 – AG3. No rebuttal from Developer’s transport consultants. Praised by Chair CMBC Parking Strategy Review. • But this opportunity for immediate improvement not evaluated, even referred to in this report

  17. Parking proposals constantly changing; and not evaluated • Three different management schemes in 3 months: all 112 public spaces long stay (July); then all short stay (August); then a mixture (18th September) • But each has with radically different and inconsistent outcomes for car park occupancy; long stay displacement; trip generation. None has been evaluated in the report

  18. Parking proposals constantly changing; and not evaluated • Proposal 1: inefficient use of spaces • Proposal 2: no demand for 112 spaces at ‘Max 4 Hours Stay’. CP will not be more than 25% occupied weekdays, & just at peak • Proposal 3: combination of increased long stay and excessive short stay

  19. Council contradictory response in Addendum report • “..not an intention to increase traffic to and around Hebden Bridge, although some increase in traffic is inevitable.” • “.. proposed public car parking is to cater for an unmet demand. It is not therefore an intention of the development to increase car use.” • “A move towards reduced long stay is a slow process ..” … achieved first by increasing it! • Council has not resolved real contradictions in its transport assessment: it claims to be increasing sustainable transport provision and car parking & use both at the same time

  20. Parking proposals notcompliant with PPG13 • Overall proposal to increase parking by 95 spaces and increased turnover/ utlilisation by short stays is … • Contrary to PPG13 para 6.7 When “considering planning applications” LAs should: “use parking policies, alongside other planning and transport measures, to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce reliance on the car for work and other journeys”

  21. Parking proposals notcompliant with PPG13 • “Local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of parking is in keeping with the size of the centre and that the parking provision is consistent with the town centre parking strategy.” PPG 13 para. 56 • “Authorities should generally refuse planning permission for car parks which do not accord with this guidance …” PPG 13 para. 58 • And other aspects of national/ regional/ UDP policy framework

  22. Parking proposals notcompliant with RSS T2 • Increasing long stay parking in Hebden Bridge by nett 50 spaces (Garden Street and Statuion Road) is contrary to RSS T2 “A progressive reduction in long stay parking ..”

  23. Objection 2: Scale of Developmentand Conservation Area Impact Summary • Full application needed to protect Conservation Area • Inadequate information provided – contrary to PPG15 • All UDP BE policies not adequately assessed; recommendations unsafe

  24. What’s needed to assess compliance with BE policies, but aren’t there • Text of UDP policy BE18 • The Full planning application,rather than Outline, required by UDP 8.66 • “Detailed plans and drawings .. including elevations”; required by PPG15 4.18 (also not quoted) • The necessary 'Before' and 'After' views – for BE18 (iv)

  25. What the Committee does not have • Text of Hebden Bridge CA statement • Text of English Heritage views • Examples of proposed materials • Comprehensive officer description & commentary on proposals; then assessment of each component of policy BE18 • Probably not safe to determine the application without all these

  26. Requirement for Full applicationof UDP paragraph 8.66 • “All planning applications that affect the character/appearance of ... a Conservation Area must be for Full planning permission.“ • Attempted Officer explanation page 16 • Point 1: Is paragraph 8.66 still legally extant and material within the UDP?

  27. Requirement of UDP paragraph 8.66 • Point 2: “... much more detail is required to be submitted with outline applications” Report - except that it has not been! • Point 3: Function of 8.66 is to protect Conservation Areas against significant change in schemes as they proceed from Outline to Full. With Outline, permission would be given in principle to just scale, height & massing. Applicant not tied to any detailed design; in theory, any design of this scale & massing could be deemed acceptable – as long as it met the Outline conditions.

  28. Assessment against Policy BE18: 1 - “scale, form, design” • Hebden Bridge is a small town, with only one access route already congested • Whereas this development is very large: in extent of site, and number, area, height and prominence of buildings. • This development is too large for Hebden Bridge, and constitutes an over-intensification of site

  29. Assessment against Policy BE18: 1 - “scale, form, design” • Whole scale of development driven by car parking numbers and 'need' which, in fact, is not required) • The associated commercial development is to pay for public car park; and then in turn there’s additional parking for commercial development. Just for +11 public spaces?

  30. Information requirements for assessment of “scale, form, design” • Important information not provided • Detailed drawings/ elevations/ views required by PPG15 to permit you to assess massing, form and design not available. • There are detailed colour elevations like these …

  31. Information requirements for assessment of “scale, form, design” • … only for two part segments of Block B; not for Blocks A/C/D/E/F. Officers refused to provide these. • Consequently, particularly because of complex geometric shaping, Committee not able to judge 'form' and massing of all blocks. • No assessment in report of compliance with this sub-policy; or by CABE. But English Heritage has expressed concerns

  32. Assessment against Policy BE18: 2 - “important views” “The view from Commercial Street, over the site and over the town, is spectacular, not least the roofscape displayed. The roofscape of the town is a vital element in its character, being so visible from so many viewpoints on the surrounding hillsides” Applicant's Design & Access Statement 2.3

  33. Assessment against Policy BE18: 2 - “important views” • Objectors and Council agree. However no 'before' and 'after' views of Commercial St provided (again refused by Council as not necessary); or within Garden Street of transverse Block D • Here are examples of views that have not been provided so you can judge their importance …

  34. Examples of affected Views:closed off by Block A

  35. Examples of affected Views:closed off by Blocks A & B

  36. Examples of affected Views:And this …

  37. Examples of affected Views:… would be replaced by this – B

  38. Examples of affected Views:location of ‘Stacker’ cabin

  39. Examples of affected Views:closed off by Block D

  40. Examples of affected Views:closed off by Block E

  41. Examples of affected Views:closed off by Blocks D & E

  42. Within Garden Street:closed off by Block D (South)

  43. Within Garden Street:closed off by Block D (North)

  44. Assessment against Policy BE18: 2 – (iv) “important views” • These ‘important views within, into and out of the area’ have not been ‘preserved’, or we cannot know if ‘enhanced’ • No assessment at all in report of compliance with ‘Views’ sub-policy; or by CABE/English Heritage

  45. Assessment against Policy BE18: 3 - “materials & methods of construction” • Impression has been given that buildings will be 'clad' in 'natural stone' • In fact: 'stone veneer' (0.8cm) cladding system Stone Lite probably imported from United States, therefore 'materials' not consistent with Conservation Area stone. No samples provided. Under Outline permission, would be viewed for first time during construction

  46. Assessment against Policy BE18: 3 - “materials/ methods of construction” • Contrasts completely with approach to materials during Hebden Bridge Traffic Review: all natural stone, artificial 'stone' rejected • No examples of this proprietorial 'method of construction' identified in UK/Europe. 'Stone' cladding also to roofs. Timber framed construction up to 7 storeys • Again, no assessment at all in report for compliance with this policy sub-section

  47. Assessment against Policy BE19: demolition of retaining wall • Demolition in CA “only be permitted if ... the structure makes no material contribution to the character or appearance of the area” • Council view: “not of any significance consequence to the character and appearance of the CA” • We disagree

  48. Assessment against Policy BE15: Impact on Listed building • Test is whether 'siting, scale, design or nature' of development will harm setting of listed building • Report is inaccurate; Southcliffe House and Block E within approximately 50m; clear line of sight

More Related