Reference 19/01223/OUT for up to 24 dwellings in Cockerham, to which Dynamo has made the following objection:
Dynamo objects to this planning application on the grounds that it does not include provision for a safe, sustainable cycle route between the new development and the wider area. (National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 108 and 110.)
On rural development, the NPPF states (paragraph 84): “Planning policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. In these circumstances it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings, DOES NOT HAVE AN UNACCEPTABLE IMPACT ON LOCAL ROADS AND EXPLOITS ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE A LOCATION MORE SUSTAINABLE (FOR EXAMPLE BY IMPROVING THE SCOPE FOR ACCESS ON FOOT, BY CYCLING OR BY PUBLIC TRANSPORT)” (my capitals).
The Transport Statement glosses over the fact that the Road Safety Foundation views the A588 as one of Britain’s most dangerous roads (https://lancasterdynamo.wordpress.com/2018/08/19/road-safety-matters/). The Lancashire Cycle Way follows this stretch of road for a short distance, so there will be increased traffic – and hence increased danger – for cyclists to negotiate
Finally, this is yet another planning application for new housing estates in Cockerham in the last 2 years (19/00438, 18/00877, etc.). If permission is granted the village will be expanded piecemeal while ignoring the need for new infrastructure for sustainable transport. Unless there are improvements, all we will get is an extra bit of pavement here and there while housing developments gobble up green space and create extra traffic. This is definitely NOT “actively [managing] patterns for growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and [focussing] significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable” (NPPF para 17). Neither does it fit in with policy SC1 (promoting sustainability) in the Lancaster District Core Strategy.
