Dynamo has objected to the planning application for 9 detached dwellings in the village of Aldcliffe – reference 19/01460 – as follows:
Dynamo objects to this planning application on the grounds that:
1. it does not offer a safe, sustainable cycle route between the development and the canal towpath (National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 108);
2. it worsens conditions for cyclists on Aldcliffe Road (contrary to NPPF para 84: “ensure that development . . does not have an unacceptable impact on local roads”)
3. there are no facilities in the village itself, so Aldcliffe is NOT amongst the villages identified in the Local Plan as suitable for sustainable development.
Nine detached houses, similar to the ones recently built at the top of Aldcliffe Hall Drive (Planning Support Statement para 5.5), will have at least 2 cars per house, if not more. This will lead to more traffic on Aldcliffe Road, which is – via the canal towpath – part of an official cycle route between Fairfield and Lancaster University.
Aldcliffe Road is practically single-track along part of its length because of on-street parking, and adding yet more traffic is a bad move. Moreover, there will soon be a new Aldi supermarket on Aldcliffe Road, and the City Council should consider how much extra traffic this is likely to generate along the whole length of the road if it becomes a rat run from south Lancaster to Aldi.
The developer brushes aside considerations of safe and convenient access for cyclists and pedestrians: cyclists are expected to use the road made busier by this development, and it seems that pedestrians are expected to squash themselves against the hedges. (Highway Access Proposals para 1.6: “There are no formal footways alongside the Aldcliffe Road carriageway but pedestrians have been observed to share the carriageway within the village and then connect to the canal towpath which provides a direct, traffic-free link.”). This contravenes paragraph 110 of the NPPF: “. . . applications for development should: a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas”.
UPDATE: the application was refused.