|
STRAND ROAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
OBJECTION TO PLANNING PERMISSION BY DELTA
MERSEYSIDE LTD
APPLICATION REF. S/O5/438
Carol Maddock
217 Strand Road
Bootle
L20
This Association would like to object to planning permission being granted to Delta Merseyside for the former John Welsh/Tudor press sites. We believe that any development by this Company would be prejudicial to the well being of residents of the area in general and Strand Road in particular
THE CURRENT SITUATION
Since the closure of Stanley Road the volume of traffic has grown by such an amount that the residents already feel that there is currently a danger that someone will be seriously injured or killed in the future. Since the closure there has been an increase in HGV,s which have no alternative but to use Strand Road for delivery access to McDonalds, The Shoe Market and other shops on the east side of Stanley Road.
Further, there has been a massive increase in the amount of general traffic, private hire vehicles, and taxis, using Strand Road. Taxis and private hire vehicles use Strand Road as a drop off point for those people who wish to go to the front of the Strand shopping centre. General traffic has also increased to unacceptable levels. Throughout the day cars are continually using Strand Road to drop shoppers off and pick them up later. Each time one of these vehicles enters Strand Road in involves the vehicle reversing to exit the road. This situation continues throughout the day up until 6.00pm when we have observed staff from the Triad being picked up in Strand Road.
The situation at the moment presents a clear danger to the residents of the area, which includes a large number of children and elderly. Sefton Council has already acknowledged the residential nature of the area by installing traffic calming measures throughout Bootle village.
All cars visiting the proposed Strand Road site will have to enter via Litherland Road. A vehicle count taken in March shows that Litherland Road has over 5000 vehicles per day on an average weekday. At peak times there are over 600 vehicles per hour travelling along Litherland Road. This is in an area, which is almost exclusively residential.
A further study in April of this year shows that in Strand Road alone there
were 2033 vehicles using the road in one 24-hour period. Of these vehicles, 1920 passed down Strand Road between the hors of 7.00 am to 7.00 pm
These figures were compiled when the restrictions on general traffic on Stanley Road were not being enforced. Once the ban on general traffic on Stanley Road is enforced it will greatly affect the amount of traffic using Litherland Road and Strand Road.
Local children already face an unacceptable level of danger when having to travel to Christchurch infants and junior school without allowing the traffic to increase so substantially that we believe it could result in loss of life.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
During The course of the last few weeks this association has conducted extensive investigations within the local taxi and private hire trade, particularly regarding the supporting statements supplied by Delta Merseyside Ltd.
Our investigations lead us to believe that the effects of the redevelopment will differ substantially from those stated by Delta.
We believe that some of the figures in the supporting statement are grossly underestimated and several key elements are not mentioned at all.
PLANNING POLICIES
The application by Delta is based on two differing versions of the Unitary Development Plan.
At (5.2) the applicant states that the adopted UDP is designated Primarily Industrial Area and as such the UDP seeks to maintain industrial activity.
However, the applicant bases his application on the draft UDP that has not fully been adopted by the Council.
At (5.4) he states “retail development and other uses including offices, leisure and cultural uses will be permitted.”
In his submission there is no mention of use of land for industrial purposes. In fact it appears to us that the proposed UDP is intended to increase retail, housing and community services within the expanded Bootle Town Centre.
We believe that granting the application is against the spirit of the proposed UDP in that it will not enhance the economic objectives of the Town Centre but will have a substantially detrimental effect on the residents of Strand Road and Bootle Village.
If the application is considered under the existing UDP we believe that there is a change of use from industrial to office and this application should be refused on this basis.
PLANNING ISSUES
In (6.3) the applicant states that under the adopted UDP, planning permission would not be required for general industrial use and states that the workshop elements of this scheme would come under this heading. We submit that the “ancillary” office and call centre are far from ancillary to his business but are by far, the greatest part of his business.
As a private hire operator, the main core of his business is to act as an agent for up to 850 private hire drivers. It is for this purpose that the applicant is redeveloping the site.
He states that Policy E5 allows for mixed-use developments, particularly where schemes incorporate significant elements of industrial floor space. By no stretch of the imagination can 3 bays for in-car computer fitting be considered substantial, given the size of the overall development.
It appears that the 3 bays have only been included in the scheme so as to take advantage of the current UDP allowing the land to be used for industrial purposes.
If allowed, Delta Merseyside would, in effect, be changing the use of the land from a garage to an office.
In any case, we believe that the proposed development does not fit in with the proposed UDP.
At (7.2) of the Draft UDP “95% of the retail floor space in the Town Centre is contained within The Strand, an indoor shopping centre. In addition to The Strand, the area on the eastern side of Stanley Road is included in order to encourage the development of this area as a main shopping street.”
This, in conjunction with, Policy R3 (3)” This area will remain the focus for new shopping development in the south of the Borough” stresses the need for retail space within the Bootle Central Area. We believe that this development does not fit in with the vision of Sefton Council and will indeed harm the vitality and viability of the area.
Again, we consider the whole scheme a change of use and consider that the application should be rejected.
At (6.11) and (6.12) the applicants state that the site will generate relatively low levels of activity both of a day and night.
We believe that this is far from the truth. Policy E5 states that regard must be given to the reasonable amenity expectations of local residents (bearing in mind the mix of residential and commercial land uses).
The area is almost exclusively residential in its character and until the recent changes in Stanley Road enjoyed substantial quiet, free from traffic and pedestrians. Visits to commercial properties were infrequent and trouble free.
This will not be the case if the applicant succeeds.
At (6.16) the applicant states that with regard to the SPG, its aspirations on land assembly are unrealistic and there is no prospect of a comprehensible development scheme being undertaken. That, of course is only his opinion, and granting of planning permission will ensure that there will never be any development, which ties in with the overall objectives of the SPG in relation to Stanley Road.
(6.17) Delta maintains that this site is the only viable option for the company. We strongly disagree. The business can operate on any site with enough room to provide what is needed. There are numerous industrial areas throughout the borough that could provide Delta with a suitable site. We believe that the company have chosen this site due to its vicinity to the main shopping centre and once established will allow access to the public.
We believe that the application is attempting to utilise the two differing UDP, s. to create its own hybrid version. The current UDP allows for the land to be used as primarily industrial, while the draft UDP would allow the land to be used for retail and certain office functions. The applicant is attempting to amalgamate both UDP.s and build a workshop and an office. This would not fit in with general development plans for the area.
TRANSPORT STATEMENT.
Prior to its acquisition by Delta, the site was owned by James Welsh and Sons and use for vehicle repair. This did not generate a great deal of traffic, and what vehicles used the site usually entered from Stanley Road, thereby avoiding the residential area.
The proposed development.
In this section, Delta states that the proposed workshop would be used for in-car computer installation and general vehicle repair would not be undertaken. (3.3) Yet at section (3.4) state that “occasionally, this building (the retained workshop) may also be used for the repair and maintenance of company owned cars”
It seems odd that in their submission they make no other mention of this, and in their breakdown of staffing levels there is no staff allocated for these purposes. See (3.6)
We believe that Delta fully intend to use the workshop for general repairs and at some future date move all their operations to the Strand Road site. We believe that the inclusion of the “directors parking bays” is for the benefit of the application only and that if planning permission is granted these will be replaced by general repair bays. If the proposed security measures are so good, why do the directors need to park inside? It appears that it is an extremely expensive way of parking three cars.
Highway considerations in planning policies.
At (4.2) Delta, again mention the “emerging UDP” in relation to their application and mentions that the policy states that retail development and other uses including offices, leisure and cultural used will be permitted. The “emerging UDP” is only a draft policy and has not yet been fully implemented. Under the present UDP we believe that the proposed development should not be allowed
At (4.4) they state that “by promoting the principle of commercial development on the land covered by EDT12, the council has tacitly acknowledged that the local highway network has the capacity to accommodate additional vehicle movements including service vehicles and that the design and layout of Strand Road and Litherland Road are of an appropriate standard to deal with the number and type of vehicles which are likely to be associated with commercial development”
We fundamentally disagree with this proposition.
We believe that Litherland Road and Strand Road have already reached full capacity in relation to vehicle movements due to the closure of Stanley Road, and any further increase in the volume of traffic in a residential area would seriously impact on the quiet enjoyment that should be afforded to the residents.
We do not believe that the council would jeopardise the health and safety of residents by “tacitly acknowledging” that the area has the capacity to accommodate more traffic without fully considering the effects on local residents.
Proposed parking provision
It appears unusual to us that the company would spend such a large amount of development cost to provide 3 in-car computer bays and 3 parking spaces for Directors. We believe that the in-car computer installations can easily be accommodated at the Mersey Road garage and consider that this facility has been included so as to ensure that the application contains a minimum of industrial use.
It seems that although Delta state that the whole site is secure and will bring more security to the area, the site is obviously not secure enough for the directors to park in during the day!
We believe that if planning permission is granted, the directors bays will be turned into workshop space and Delta will eventually move the Mersey Road garage to Bootle. The new workshop and the existing one (allegedly for parking) will have more than enough space to accommodate the work from Mersey Road
The plans, as submitted, would turn the site into a very expensive car park while Delta would still maintain 2 other sites at considerable cost.
Traffic movements associated with the proposed development.
The greatest effect on the local residents will be caused by the huge increase in traffic movements, which will be generated by the proposed development.
In the transport statement, Delta grossly underestimates the increase in traffic that they would bring to the area. We believe that this is a deliberate attempt to lessen the burden that they would place on traffic flows in the area.
At (7.4) the list of visitors does not include the largest group i.e. drivers paying settle.
We believe that the figures provided are unrealistic, and more importantly cannot be limited by the present regulations.
Based on Deltas figures, they use the services of 800 cars. Each one of those cars has to attend the office at least once per week to pay settle.
Delta submit that under the new proposals at least 25% of those would pay their settle at the Crosby office. We believe that the Crosby office will be closed down if the move to Strand Road is allowed. It was stated that the Crosby office will be kept open with a staff of 3 people. We find that this figure is totally unreasonable. To keep an office open 24 hours a day (as a private hire office would have to be) would mean that 3 staff would have to work 56 hours each per week on a 7-day basis.
Delta also state that there will be a number of drivers attending the office for administrative reasons e.g. updating documents. This will apply to all drivers who have to confirm their insurance details to the company at least once per month
We estimate that this could be up to 500 vehicles. This would generate up to 1000 movements per month along Strand Road as well as up to 1600 movements PER WEEK for drivers paying settle.
Delta currently operates a system whereby the company credits are taken off the amount due for settle but our information is that they very rarely cover the full cost of the settle. We estimate that company credits would have no impact on reducing vehicle movements.
Additional visits would also be made where drivers could “cash in” any credits immediately after doing the job.
From our extensive enquiries amongst private hire and taxi drivers we have found that very few drivers would be prepared to pay settle by electronic transfer. The business is almost exclusively cash and we believe that this will remain so.
We believe that Deltas figure are totally unrealistic and the proposed site would generate at least 1000 visits per week.i.e. 2000 movements.
We would also like to point out that these figures apply from initial opening.
S.48 (1) b Local Government (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
The above Act prohibits a council from refusing the grant of a vehicle licence as long as certain conditions are met (roadworthiness, insurance etc.) As a result, if Delta expand to cover the whole of Merseyside it is extremely likely that the weekly figure for movements could realistically go beyond 4000-5000 per week and have no upper limit.
We would also like to draw attention to the recent leaflet sent to local residents by Delta. As well as a brief explanation of what they plan, they included what can only be considered a threat to the local residents regarding objections to their application.
They state that
“Should planning be refused the fallback plan is to move our garage operation from Blundellsands to Strand Road. This would require no planning, no development and no investment, but we would expect to generate far more Strand Road traffic as Delta Garages now services the largest private hire fleet in Britain”
We believe that the set-up in Bootle is such that they intend to move it there even if the new proposals are passed.
CONCLUSION
We believe that Deltas application is bad for Bootle, bad for Strand Road and Litherland Road and bad for the local residents.
We are concerned that the amount of extra traffic generated by Delta and the extra burden placed by the closure of Stanley Road will have an adverse effect on the health and safety of the residents.
An unlimited amount of vehicles passing down such a small residential area will increase the amount of toxic fumes to such an extent that we are of the opinion that it will have a significant effect on the health of the residents, particularly children and the elderly.
No mention is made of this by Delta in their application. Nor has there been any attempt by the to gauge how the increase in traffic will affect the substantial amount of pedestrians (including many children) who use Strand Road.
We believe that the figures provided by Delta have been deliberately misleading as is the eventual full use of the site.
The proposal does not create any new jobs, does not enhance the area, it will create pollution and safety hazards for the residents and does not fit in with the overall objective of the Town Centre developments.
We urge that planning permission be refused.
what can you do....???? love mrT..........
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Streetcar...Deltas planning permission was granted with conditions,set in stone, he now has a choice redevelop the site at a cost of 3.5 million,and do as he has stated, or have planning permission revoked if he breaks the rules and lose a lot of money,(a watching brief has been set), I would not like to have that amount of money at stake with a sword over my head!!!
