Update on LA3. New documents

An update on LA3…

There have been a number of updates to the planning application. 

The updates are associated with the report from HCC Highways who reject the planning application! Before we all get carried away, the rejection seems largely on the basis of lack of information.  The developers have responded by submitting more information.  These updates are solely to do with Highways, so in some ways they have been a help to us in that we have had another opportunity to spell out our concerns.  We have done so through the normal channel of DBC but have included HCC and our councillors in the circulation. 

Our submission is shown below. As well as containing our response it contains a link enabling you to access earlier material which you may find useful if you wish to add to your own initial submission. We hope you will.

•             Bourne End Proposals for Surrounding Lanes

•             Planning Letter LA3 (This is our initial submission)

•             Bourne End Village Association Response to Focussed Meeting on LA3.  We met DBC planners and the developers back in May. Our questions were not answered.  This document is reiterating the questions and they have still not been answered.

In addition to these activities we have met with David Gauke again and he is going to arrange a meeting with DBC planning officers.  Our focus with David Gauke is national and local policy in relation to the traveller site. 

Do, however, go through the documents yourself and respond directly. There are some  15 document all labelled ‘Additional information’. Search for LA3 then click on ‘Related documents’ then ’View Application Documents. All bar one of the 15 document dated 15/07/2019 are labelled 'Additional information'.  The first is the Transport Assessment Addendum which probable contains the most useful information.

Re: Application LA3 03266/18
Bourne End Village Association LA3 Response to additional information from developers
June/July 2019

This document should be read as an addition to BEVA’s original submission.
Reference is made to a number of documents which are either not available or not readily accessible on DBC’s planning website. This document therefore provides access on OneDrive via the following link to:
Bourne End Proposals for Surrounding Lanes
Planning Letter LA3 (Original submission)
Bourne End Village Association Response to Focussed Meeting on LA3

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgmgOt416P264TqGiM7gRHyKsVVy?e=2HnsOJ

This document is in response to the additional information on the website uploaded during June and July 2019. Much of this information relates to HCC’s rejection of the original proposals on transport and the response of the developers.  There are suggestions in the submissions that the issues raised by Bourne End Village Association have been addressed. This is incorrect. 

There appears to be misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of the issues raised by Bourne End Village Association. It appears that HCC have not considered certain traffic areas, and the developers have conflated our views on the traffic issues with those of the access arrangements to the traveller site. There are some links between the two, but the fundamental issues are separate.

Traffic issues

Bourne End Village Association have submitted proposals for the closure of Pouchen End Lane and Chaulden Lane to through vehicular traffic. These were submitted to HCC, DBC officers, our local councillors and the developers of LA3.  The proposals are in response to current traffic issues which impact on Winkwell in particular (the road). The recent approval for 56 houses in Pix Farm Lane will increase the pressure on Winkwell. This would be significantly increased by traffic from LA3 using the routes as a rat run.

Transport Assessment Addendum Section 7 page 34 refers to these village proposals although only one page is included in the appendices. The full submission ‘Bourne End Proposals for Surrounding Lanes’ can be read by following the link above. In the light of the additional information BEVA wishes to make the following observations.

1)      The volume of traffic generated by the gypsy and traveller site is itself not significant. However

a)       It would be going onto a rat run which would be exacerbated from current levels.

b)      It would go onto a rat run where the proposed widening would allow for faster traffic.

c)       Potential visibility is restricted at the point of the proposed access.

d)      The vast majority is likely to access the A41 via Winkwell road.

BEVA contests  the statement that ‘it is unlikely that this <stopping up of Chaulden Lane>  would bring significant safety benefits as initially thought considering that the traveller site would result in only 6 and 4 two way trips in the am and pm peak hours.’ (Section 7.1.3 Developer response).  Closure at any one point in the lane would ensure access only and would create a road more suited to pedestrians and cyclists as we have claimed and as chimes with HCC current policy.

2)      HCC appears not to be following its own policy of resisting development of roads to be used as rat runs.
‘D. On Rural Local Distributor and Access Roads: Deter through traffic including rat running from using these roads. Resist developments which would generate an unacceptable change in the amount or type of traffic’.[i]

3)      The BEVA proposal shows two cut-off points, shown as A and B in Chaulden Lane. This is based on the access arrangement put to local residents and the basis on which the land was removed from the Green Belt by DBC Cabinet. (See LA3 Master Plan[ii] which shows only an Emergency access onto Chaulden Lane).

4)      Until and when a school is opened within LA3, children from the traveller site and subsequently from the southern end of LA3 will use Chaulden Lane. This raises serious safety issues bearing in mind the nature of the lane and bearing the points above.  The situation is exacerbated by the noise of passing trains which means pedestrians do not hear approaching traffic. (A point noted by HCC Highways)

5)      Access to public transport to Berkhamsted and to Watford for residents at the Buttons site will be via Winkwell (Arriva 500).  This bus service will also be the most logical for residents in the southern section of LA3. This is an additional traffic / safety issue.

6)      The Framework Travel Plan states ‘4.9 The existing route plan outlined in Dacorum Cycling Strategy identifies Pouchen End Lane towards the west and north-west and Chaulden Lane towards the south as a good route for cycling.’ The developers acknowledge this but do nothing to ensure that it is possible to implement.  Indeed the widening of Chaulden Lane in contravention of HCC policy would ensure an increase in speed and volume of rat run traffic.

7)      In the response submitted by the developers (C&A Associates) they refer to the requirements of NPPF

a)      In the Transport Assessment (2.2.3) reference to NPPF para. 102 quoting that plans should ‘help reduce congestion’  

b)      In the Transport Assessment (2.2.4) reference is made to NPPF para. 110 ‘plans minimising scope of conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.’

The widening of Chaulden Lane would increase both congestion and safety issues both in the lane and in Winkwell.

A number of issues regarding the traffic have been raised. Several overlap with the traveller site access.  However our main concern with regards to the traveller site relates to conformity with policy, both local and national (Planning for Traveller Sites 2015 DBC Policy CS22 14.44). These concerns have been made clear on a considerable number of occasions.

We look forward to an early response to the issues addressed in this document.

Bourne End Village Association
15/08/19

---

[i] http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/transtreets/ltplive/azltp/hierarchy/

[ii]Page 9 LA3 Master Plan http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/docs/default-source/strategic-planning/la3-master-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=6  (The diagram in our submission is taken from this Master Plan)