semerpus Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 It didnt stop them when they needlessly blocked the NEXT store next to Meadowhall. Or the IKEA ---------- Post added 10-09-2016 at 15:18 ---------- T [/color] As myself and others have said, the planners have to operate within the policy and legal framework which is set by the government. If they set unreasonable conditions or block development unreasonably, the applicant will appeal and win and that will cost you, the taxpayer, a lot of money. So be it..as you say I'm a tax payer and while I think my money should be spent on much better things I neither think I should be shafted by developers who are the only people who will profit out of this. I have already contacted my MP and Councillors to enquire how we can have this reviewed/delayed while full assessments into the traffic situation as it current is are undertaken and to what the developers can/could do to mitigate this before they begin construction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Or the IKEA The council didn't block IKEA. They gave them consent at the planned site and the application which IKEA made a few years ago at Parkway Avenue was withdrawn by them, probably because of the objections which were made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fonz Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 That's my point it's the overall impact on everything from this scheme therefore all issues should be addressed and financed by the developers who stand to make money at the expense of current residents Apologies for not reading your post more clearly. My point still stands though, developers contribute, they don't have bottomless pockets. Things need to take priority and where the stated impact is not significant, which this isn't, why would or should a developer pay for it? ---------- Post added 12-09-2016 at 09:26 ---------- full assessments into the traffic situation as it current is are undertaken and to what the developers can/could do to mitigate this before they begin construction. This has already been done as part of the planning application. A transport assessment will have been produced following govt guidance. This will include traffic surveys, junction modelling, trip rate calculation, and assessment of the impact of the new traffic Just because it doesn't say what you want doesn't mean it wasn't carried out correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 Apologies for not reading your post more clearly. My point still stands though, developers contribute, they don't have bottomless pockets. Things need to take priority and where the stated impact is not significant, which this isn't, why would or should a developer pay for it? ---------- Post added 12-09-2016 at 09:26 ---------- This has already been done as part of the planning application. A transport assessment will have been produced following govt guidance. This will include traffic surveys, junction modelling, trip rate calculation, and assessment of the impact of the new traffic Just because it doesn't say what you want doesn't mean it wasn't carried out correctly. 1 - It will be significant. Who are these people to tell me my time is worthless ? In my calculations earlier I reckon even if only one minute is added (It may well be more than this, we`ll see....) to everyone`s commute that`s fill working day per year. How would they like it if we all said, the country`s a bit skint, why don`t you work for free one day a year ? It`s maddening. 2 - We`ll see whether it`s been undertaken correctly. What I think we can all agree on is the powers that be should be banned from using meaningless words like "significant". They should be required to say how much extra time the average commute will take in actual minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fonz Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 This was largely paid for by the local authorities because they were in charge of developing the Reitdiep area and bought the land to parcel it up and resell to developers. I can't get my head around the fact that this does not seem to happen in the UK? . Im not sure of the process in Holland but here I think it comes down to budgets. Local authorities can made bids to the Department for Transport for extra funding for road schemes if and when required, the new Tinsley Link Road for example. ---------- Post added 12-09-2016 at 10:07 ---------- 1 - It will be significant. Who are these people to tell me my time is worthless ? In my calculations earlier I reckon even if only one minute is added (It may well be more than this, we`ll see....) to everyone`s commute that`s fill working day per year. How would they like it if we all said, the country`s a bit skint, why don`t you work for free one day a year ? It`s maddening. 2 - We`ll see whether it`s been undertaken correctly. What I think we can all agree on is the powers that be should be banned from using meaningless words like "significant". They should be required to say how much extra time the average commute will take in actual minutes. If you look at the Transport Assessment the results from the junction modelling does include delay information. No one is saying your time is worthless but what they are saying is that the impact on your journey is acceptable when considered against the benefits of these new homes. The calculation of the benefits vs dis-benefits to the economy of new development would be an interesting one, but not really one for a transport assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) Im not sure of the process in Holland but here I think it comes down to budgets. Local authorities can made bids to the Department for Transport for extra funding for road schemes if and when required, the new Tinsley Link Road for example. ---------- Post added 12-09-2016 at 10:07 ---------- If you look at the Transport Assessment the results from the junction modelling does include delay information. No one is saying your time is worthless but what they are saying is that the impact on your journey is acceptable when considered against the benefits of these new homes. The calculation of the benefits vs dis-benefits to the economy of new development would be an interesting one, but not really one for a transport assessment. Do we know what they said (in minutes) in this instance ? I`m on record as admitting I`m not totally in favour of new roads building because new roads do generate more traffic. However, in this instance more traffic is going to be generated anyway, thus I think the infamous link from Middlewood to Claywheels should be built and the developers should be required to pay something towards it. If there`s no planning mechanism to force them to do the then the planning laws should be changed. Edited September 12, 2016 by Justin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semerpus Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Apologies for not reading your post more clearly. My point still stands though, developers contribute, they don't have bottomless pockets. Things need to take priority and where the stated impact is not significant, which this isn't, why would or should a developer pay for it? ---------- Post added 12-09-2016 at 09:26 ---------- This has already been done as part of the planning application. A transport assessment will have been produced following govt guidance. This will include traffic surveys, junction modelling, trip rate calculation, and assessment of the impact of the new traffic Just because it doesn't say what you want doesn't mean it wasn't carried out correctly. You're quite correct just because it doesn't say what I want doesn't mean it hasn't been done correctly. Neither does it mean it's right- what goverment/planners may perceive as insignificant disruption is actually different to those who have to endure it day by day. Funnily enough just had an e mail off my MP who agrees that the A6102 is unsustainable now and even in the longer term and just for clarity purpose I have no objection against house building on site just that the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer the fall out. ---------- Post added 12-09-2016 at 15:18 ---------- Im not sure of the process in Holland but here I think it comes down to budgets. Local authorities can made bids to the Department for Transport for extra funding for road schemes if and when required, the new Tinsley Link Road for example. ---------- Post added 12-09-2016 at 10:07 ---------- If you look at the Transport Assessment the results from the junction modelling does include delay information. No one is saying your time is worthless but what they are saying is that the impact on your journey is acceptable when considered against the benefits of these new homes. The calculation of the benefits vs dis-benefits to the economy of new development would be an interesting one, but not really one for a transport assessment. acceptable by who? not me! So when the link bus is either whizzing past full or caught in more traffic missing it's intended tram link and a further 10-15-20 mins are added onto my journey per day thats acceptable?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fonz Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Do we know what they said (in minutes) in this instance ? For specifics you would need to look at the planning application, you should also bare in mind the predictions contain base growth, which will also have an impact. ---------- Post added 12-09-2016 at 15:33 ---------- new roads do generate more traffic. However, in this instance more traffic is going to be generated anyway. Does the new traffic justify a new road? Perhaps the cumulative effects of the various developments do?. Mechanisms are in place to take contributions from a number of developments and pool those as part of a Community Infrastructure Levy but again this fund is for a variety of different things, not just to build new roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 I am very curious about this as a Dutchman, are these generally/globally accepted statistics? In my old homecity of Groningen they improved all infrastructure surrounding a new development of scale. It doesn't take a lot to increase the pressure on the (rather horrible) Catchbar Lane/Leppings Lane/Parkside Road traffic to a point where people will not spend a minute a day extra but in fact much longer. Gridlock already occurs, in particular with the tram coming through and getting preferential lights. If you follow the planning rules to their logical conclusion it's probably beneficial for the developers to build small(ish) developments of a couple of hundred homes rather than large 1000+ developments. Each smaller one can claim to have no significant difference on current traffic levels, even if there is a cumulative effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the fonz Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 acceptable by who? not me! There is the problem, you don't think its acceptable, others do. I would suggest that with most developments someone thinks its unacceptable for a variety of reasons. Its ultimately up to the planners and councillors on the planning committee to decide on the application, the decision date should be soon I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now