Response to Officer’s Report
Point 14 -Other Points in Brief
Statement:- “Vehicular
access to 15
Ainsworth Road would be
more difficult as a result of the additional traffic attracted to the store and
the Applicant has agreed to provide an alternative access to the property from Crossley Street.”
Response:- Physically impossible.
Check it out on site visit.
Statement:- Ainsworth Road between the site junction and Victory Road would be provided with traffic calming measures to
compensate for any increase in traffic.
Response:- Since when could
traffic calming ‘compensate ‘ for an increase in traffic? All it would do would
be to slow things down thus increasing congestion.
Statement:- The
carriageway in the main junction would be resurfaced in a contrasting surfacing
material to encourage speed reduction.
Response :- Thus
increasing tailbacks and congestion.
Statement:- A puffin
crossing would be provided on Market Street to accommodate the pedestrian desire line between the
south side of Little Lever and the proposed supermarket. The crossing would
have the added advantage of creating gaps in the flow of through traffic on the
A6053 to help traffic emerging from Ainsworth Road and Lever Street.
Response:- Thus slowing down the
through traffic increasing tailbacks and congestion and encouraging the use of
Rat Runs.
Statement:- The
existing zebra crossing on Church Street would be replaced by a puffin crossing to provide safer
conditions for pedestrians. This would have the added advantage of creating slightly
longer gaps in the flow of through traffic on the A6053 to help traffic
emerging from Ainsworth
Road and Lever Street.
Response:- Ditto the last point.
Statement:- Section
38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications to be
determined in accordance with policies in the Development Plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise.
Applications which are not in accordance with
Development Plan policies should be refused unless material considerations
justify granting permission.
Similarly, proposals which accord with Development Plan
policies should be approved unless there are material considerations which
would justify a refusal of permission.
It is therefore necessary to decide whether this proposal
is in accordance with the Development Plan and then take account of other
material considerations.
Response:- If the Committee reject the ‘Uplift’ argument
and accept that, at 1.83 times the size of store recommended in the Development
Plan, the proposal is NOT in accordance with that Plan, then the Application
should be Refused.
Statement:- Impact of
the Traffic Regulation Order and one way system on local businesses –
Concern has been expressed by a number of local land owners
and existing businesses that both the one way system and double yellow lines
will constrain the businesses.
It is not considered that this will be the case.
If granted approval and
developed out the Tesco’s car parking area would provide easy access to adjoin
(sic) businesses without the need to find alternative ways of driving along Lever Street.
In addition, this assumes that customers to the businesses
(flower shop and beauty salon) access the site from the Market Street/Church Street direction;
Response:- It certainly IS considered to be the
case by the Property and Business owners.
Mr Howcroft has just
spent a fortune buying Sharples Court off the Council to
provide parking for the Apartments and Businesses at the Junction end of Lever St.
Since over half of
Little Lever is to the East of the Junction, customers from that side who
currently nip into Lever St and Sharples Court would be discouraged if they had
to go all the way round.
Regarding the Tesco car
park – that’s no use to residents of the Flats ‘cos it’s locked up at night.
There is nothing in this Application to show Tesco’s agreement to this and in
any event, why should people have to do this?
Statement:- What will
happen to the vacant store ? – the applicant on behalf of Tesco’s have stated
their commitment to letting the property out if and when Tesco’s move out of
the store. The property is owned by Tesco’s and therefore it is not;
Response:- ‘It is not ;’ ………. - What ?????
Statement:- The site
has potentially better end uses e.g. residential and/or a new health centre for
Little Lever;
Response:- Where did this come from ?????. There is
nothing on the Planning Application documentation that even hints at these
alternative end uses.
In my humble view, if
the authors of this are the Planning Department, it is no business of theirs to
be flying unsupported and irrelevant kites at the last minute.
In any event, both ideas
are non-starters. Where would the money come from ?.
The PCT is skint and no
housing developer is going to pay the Market price for the store and then knock
it down. Conversion of the store to residential would be prohibitively
expensive.
If we are
talking about potentially better end uses, then let us consider potentially
better end uses for the Pennine Pets Site
This is discussed in the
final Point 15
No comments:
Post a Comment