MASTERPLAN AND PLANNING APPLICATION 2022/0451
(MARKET STREET CORRIDOR)
SITE OF PROPOSED TAYLOR WIMPEY DEVELOPMENT:
- Serious safety concerns re new junction entrance /exit to Taylor Wimpey (TW) proposed 238 houses – site access proposed on market street is highly trafficked, heavily parked upon National Highways Diversion route if the A56/M66 shuts, a key route for agricultural and large quarry vehicles in the area and for cyclists that both commute (Bury, Rawtenstall & further afield) and recreational route for some of the best mountain biking in the North West. The site access proposed is directly opposite a private drive and other driveways, making access to these driveways dangerous. There is no proposed traffic measures for the private access road opposite, meaning that vehicles would exit straight onto the junction.
20 houses get their bins collected outside this private drive once a week. The refuse vehicle would have to park in front of the pedestrian crossing blocking the road at the junction, this would cause congestion at the junction and would put the safety of pedestrians and vulnerable road users at risk.
Having considered the proposals there is concern that the safety measures proposed are not sufficient and may not meet the requirements for a development of the scale proposed, particularly in relation to sufficient visibility and potentially putting the lives of residents, vulnerable road users (cyclists) and the primary school children (just 250m from the junction) at risk.
A road safety audit has been mentioned as being necessary on several occasions but has been ignored, Lancashire County Council and RBC must consider this otherwise they are potentially breaching their responsibility to ensure safe day to day life of all residents in Edenfield.
- Double yellow lines in front of houses – how will current residents access properties with shopping, babies, young children etc?
- Compensatory car park is not large enough and not fit for purpose – recent audit identified between 35 and 40 cars parked every night; the car park appears to be open to new and existing residents therefore can’t be compensatory; no spaces for potential trades/service personnel; no future proofing e.g. electric charging points; no disabled provision
- No phasing proposal for TW site – therefore could be one big building site for next 10 years leading to traffic and pedestrian safety concerns
- Flood safety risk– SUDS too close to A56 where there is already a known failure of infrastructure/embankment, could reduce stability further on the A56 and put road users safety at risk
- No green spaces within the proposed housing development as recommended in the Places Matter Design Review Report – cramped layout and poor design, the green space being on the western periphery, cost saving
- Maps incorrect affecting accuracy of traffic proposal and leading to further road and pedestrian safety concerns, No. 82 is no longer a single dwelling, Horse and Jockey has been demolished and there is now a new junction with houses Pilgrim Gardens
- Bus stop proposed to be removed and relocated – there is no space to relocate
- Only one crossing point proposed at North side of the junction and not wide enough to incorporate cyclists– serious safety concerns for pedestrians particularly our very young vulnerable primary school children crossing Market Street from the south side
- Pavements not wide enough – to ensure safety of pedestrians should be 2m wide
OVERARCHING CONCERNS FOR EDENFIELD AS A WHOLE:
There is still no comprehensive masterplan including input from all developers
- Proposed further release of greenbelt
- Proposed new junctions unsafe and not fit for purpose
- Serious traffic, cycle and pedestrian safety concerns could result in fatality
- No road safety audit, despite this being raised as a concern on several occasions- we do not believe the traffic proposal would pass a road safety audit
- Double yellow lines and restrictions on parking will have a negative effect on local business’s, resulting in a negative effect on the economy – the opposite of what was promised in local plan
- No phasing proposal – concerns over road and pedestrian safety if phasing is ignored and building undertaken simultaneously
- Discrimination against existing residents to accommodate needs of residents in the new houses
- Flood risk overall but particularly on the A56 leading to serious traffic and public safety concerns – still awaiting national highways feedback