Green Lane - Developers' Response

Last Updated on Sunday, 25 December 2011 12:32 Written by Administrator Wednesday, 14 December 2011 19:44

GREEN LANE – DEVELOPERS RESPONSE

Transport

We note your comments and concerns. Our transport Consultant, Richard Parker is already in discussions with Hampshire County Highways regarding the footpath at the top end of Green Lane where it connects on to Chalton Lane, which is all in Highways ownership, to see what can be agreed with Hampshire.

He is also talking to them with regards to Public transport to see if some of the contributions coming out of this site can be earmarked for improving Public transport to both the North and South of Clanfield.

The areas of road and pavement marked as blocked paving on the plans, while the kerb will be lower, there will still be a clear delineation between road and walk way.

Integration

All external finishes will have to be approved by EHDC, however, we are ensuring our elevations reflect characteristics found through the village including, neutral render, tile hanging, red brick and flint

Our Landscape Architects are working on the Landscaping strategy and are responding to individual requests from neighbors to the proposed development for particular screening requirements as well as ensuring the overall scheme is as green and appropriate as possible.

Community Safety

On all developments we have a conflict between Planners desire for permeability between old and new schemes and Secure by Design requirements of the police. All footpaths are being designed to have natural surveillance and where footpaths are connecting on to existing cul-de-sacs, street furniture will be put in place to ensure that cyclists and pedestrians have to slow down before existing in to the cul-de-sacs.

Green Lane - Parish Council Questions

Written by Administrator Wednesday, 14 December 2011 19:43

CLANFIELD PARISH COUNCIL

COMMENTS ON THE CURRENT PROPOSALS

FOR

THE GREEN LANE DEVELOPMENT

The impression gained by the Parish Council is that many if not all of the main areas of concern have already been covered by comments made at the two public exhibitions and the EHDC Forum meeting.

The time permitted for careful study has been very limited, however in order to help we offer the following comments which in all probability will replicate those that have been made already:-

Transport is a main concern to almost all villagers:-

1)         The two means of vehicular site access is via existing narrow lanes with limited visibility that already create problems for large vehicles – and pedestrians.

2)         The perceived absence of “footpaths” (and therefore safety) in the shared roads could cause concern to pedestrians and users of wheelchairs.

3)         Green Lane is narrow and in places has inadequate or non-existent footpaths, particularly between the site entrance and Chalton Lane. Since these will be used by young and old, as well as schoolchildren, careful actions will need to be considered.

4)         The village is already poorly served by public transport and the new development will only exacerbate an existing problem.

Integration between new and old:-

1)         The lack of separation between new and existing properties has been raised frequently, particularly in the region of Duncton Road and Storrington Avenue. It is reassuring to understand that actions have/are being taken to redress these concerns.

2)         The external finish has been questioned particularly to ensure that the appearance is in sympathy with the rest of the village.

3)         Most comments request the addition of more trees/hedges to provide softening and additional screening to the landscape.

 Community Safety:-

 1)         Concerns have been raised about public safety by the use of narrow and possibly concealed footpaths between the various section

Green Lane Meeting

Last Updated on Monday, 10 January 2011 19:37 Written by Administrator Monday, 10 January 2011 19:35

Meeting to be held on proposed development on Green Lane, Clanfield

A meeting is to be held between representatives of the Clanfield Petition Group, Clanfield Parish Council and East Hampshire District Council to receive a petition and discuss the proposed development at Green Lane.

The meeting, to be chaired by EHDC Leader Cllr Patrick Burridge, will be held on 19 January 2011, from 6.30pm to 8.30pm, in the Council Chamber at Penns Place, Petersfield.

Both the parish council and petition group will be invited to put forward three attendees each to represent their respective views.

Representatives from Hampshire County Council’s Highways Department and the applicant’s agent will also be taking part.

The parish council will have the opportunity to update the meeting on its recently conducted traffic audit of the area and the petition group will present its petition, containing more than 2,000 names, and their report.

 The meeting will take the form of opening statements followed by a discussion and will be open to members of the public who will be able to observe, but not to speak. No decision will be made on the planning application at the meeting.

 A date has not yet been set for the application to go before EHDC's Planning Committee South although members of the committee will be invited to attend this meeting as observers.

CONTACT: Chris Murray, Head of Planning Services, 01730 234231

Green Lane traffic Survey

Written by Administrator Sunday, 19 December 2010 21:28

The Parish Council have received the Traffic Audit commissioned from Dr Allan Burns and his comments on the December 2009 TA (Transport Assessment ).

It should be noted that the TA included 300 rather than the current 275 homes and Care Home now deleted. This Audit has enabled the Parish Council to understand some areas of the TA which it feels were not conducted or presented in a meaningful way. With reference to this Audit Report we make the following initial observations.

 GATHERED DATA.

In general the data gathered during the period 20^th November to 26^th November 2010 agrees broadly with the data gathered in June 2009, for the December 2009 TA.  The variations noticed are relatively small and could possibly be accounted for by the difference in traffic flows between Summer and Winter, either way they are not considered to be significant.

 See 2010 Traffic Data recorded   

PROCESSED DATA

We do have reservations however concerning the models used for processing the gathered data and the conclusions reached as a result.

 In asking for guidance on the software used we were advised:-

The correct approach to using TRICS is to go through the available data and select sites that are broadly comparable to the one being considered.
Clearly, this is a matter of judgement and there will never be two sites that have identical characteristics.

In this case Odyssey have used 4 sites.  None of these are in London.  The sites are in the following locations:-

1.  Eastbourne  (270 dwellings)
2.  Welwyn Garden City  (158 dwellings)
3.  Preston  (217 dwellings)
4.  Worcester  (126 dwellings)

The criteria used to select the sites include the range of the number of dwellings, location (3 sites were defined as "edge of town" and 1 suburban),
population within specified distances and car ownership levels.

Clanfield Parish Council contend that none of these sites are comparable to a semi-rural village like Clanfield as can be seen in the following table.

The comparison with medium to large towns is totally inappropriate and could possibly be due to Clanfield only being treated in post codes as part of Waterlooville, which anyone living in the area, including representatives of EHDC know is not the case.

The population and transport data has been obtained from a number of web based sites such as National Rail, Wikipedia and parish records. The housing number is an estimate based on 3 persons per property, so as not to skew the results in our favour.

From the above it can be seen that the “comparable” selected sites have a substantial infrastructure to support their proposed development and yet were being asked to support a very much smaller expansion.

All of the chosen sites have their own rail station, two with substantial parking  and good bus services, whereas Clanfield is 6 miles from Petersfield and has an inadequate (and in some cases non-existent) bus service. Having bus stops is one thing, having reliable and regular buses is quite another.

The comparison sites have a much better existing road network than Clanfield which is being expected to accommodate any increase in traffic via existing country lanes.

It is also noticed that the proposed development in Clanfield is larger in real terms and as a percentage is 15 times higher than that of the highest comparable site.

Local residents are aware that there is little employment within the village and residents in the proposed development will be required to provide and use their own transport, which can hardly allow the development to be described as sustainable.

It would appear from the above draft comments that the 2009 Transport Assessment fails to address some effects of the proposed development. Further investigation is taking place and will be commented on in due course.