Sittingbourne Society response to Regeneration plans: Planning Application 14/505440: Regeneration of Sittingbourne Town Centre I am instructed on behalf of the Sittingbourne Society to forward to you the following comments on and objections to the proposals contained within the above planning application. In general the Society considers that the proposals are the best of the many different schemes we have seen in the past. There are however a number of aspects which cause us concern and which have led us to decide to object to the scheme in the hope that the Council will endeavour to resolve the problems we have highlighted in discussion with the consultants before deciding whether to give planning consent. They are:- Discrepancies between this application and the Public Consultation documents: We note that there are significant differences between some of the figures contained in the earlier consultation documents and those contained in this application. For example the earlier document predicted 1,000 new jobs with 400 generated by the construction phase. The application quotes 330 jobs during construction and just 230 post-development. That is a significant difference. Then there is a claim of 400,000 visitors per year for the leisure quarter – an average of 1,096 per day. But the transport assessment suggests a peak demand for the cinema of 112 car spaces and the restaurants of 58 spaces. That seems to be expecting an unprecedented modal shift from car to public transport, walking or cycling, which we suspect is completely unrealistic. Roads: We note that the proposal is to dispense with the station roundabout and to take St.Michael’s Road on a sinuous route through the station frontage. Traffic in this area runs fairly freely at present and there are few holdups near the roundabout. The new proposals however include a traffic light controlled junction in front of The Fountain public house. We know from long experience that such junctions cause lengthy delays at peak periods. The “Morrisons” junction, Crown Quay Lane/Eurolink Way and St. Michael’s Road/Crown Quay Lane are prime examples and we are concerned that this is another in the making. We would have preferred a mini-roundabout which we think would have helped to keep traffic flowing freely. We note the proposal to reduce Cockleshell Walk to a single lane (although the illustration at page 44 of the Design and Access Statement Part 2 shows two lanes as at present). Under the current arrangements traffic emerging from West Street and London Road has the chance to merge along the length of Cockleshell Walk and hence flows freely. Under the proposed arrangements there will be no merging area and vehicles will instead have to fight their way through the T junction. This will inevitably cause tail backs in London Road and West Street. We would have preferred to see a widening scheme which involved taking a thin strip of land from the “landscaped” area on the east side of Cockleshell Walk and from the Spring Street car park thus retaining two lanes of road space. The proposal is for a pedestrian “hump” over St. Michael’s Road in front of the station. Bearing in mind the volume of traffic using this road we think it is essential for pedestrian safety that a light controlled crossing is provided – as under the current arrangements - although that may entail more traffic delays. In view of the large number of customers expected to patronize the multi-screen cinema and the proposed new retail area, many of whom will drive in from outside the town or from the outer estates, we would have liked to see forecasts of the expected impact on the busier junctions in and around the town such as those on Mill Way and Eurolink Way. Parking: We note that Cockleshell Walk, Spring Street and the area in front of the station will lose their car parks and that alternative car parking will be provided in a multi storey car park in Station Street. We are however concerned that there appears to be only a marginal increase in car parking spaces and that some of the figures quoted by the consultants are patently wrong. They have in addition completely ignored the fact that 32 spaces in front of the station will be lost. Our assessment of the situation is as follows- Consultants’ Actual Figures Figures Losses in spaces – Cockleshell Walk 104 102 Spring Street 101 72 Forum 161 161 Station Street 28 28 Station forecourt 32 ___ ___ Total losses 394 395 Spaces gained - Multi-storey 308 Forum 97 ___ Total gains 405 Net gain in spaces 10 A gain of 10 spaces may satisfy the consultants but bearing in mind the extra people expected to be attracted to the town centre by the cinema and restaurants, not to mention the large number of additional commuters from new housing developments on the town periphery, we think that townspeople have every reason to be concerned. We foresee considerable problems arising from on-street parking in residential areas within walking distance of the town centre. This factor seems to have been completely overlooked by the town planners. We are also concerned at the proposed loss of long-term parking provision, which we calculate could be as high as 83%. We understand that the intention is to reclassify the Albany Road car park as long-term. But that will mean that this busy car park will become more expensive for shoppers requiring short-term parking, thus helping to drive more people away from the High Street shopping area. We feel therefore that it is vital that a proportion of the spaces in the multi-storey should be designated as long-term, as the application itself assumes will be the case. A further matter of concern is the inadequate provision to be made for residents’ car parking in the Cockleshell Walk and Spring Street housing developments. Inevitably this will result in more on-street parking in nearby streets such as Hawthorn Road, leading to pressure for more residents’ car parking permit schemes. Furthermore residents visiting the clinics etc and shops and businesses in West Street and London Road (who currently use the Cockleshell Walk car park) will place further strains on the on-street parking provision in the area. There is reference in the documents to the proposal to re-route the station car park access/exit road and to take it through the car park next to KwikFit. Nowhere however does the application explain what the effect of this will be on car park spaces in the St.Michael’s Road car park next to KwikFit or whether it will reduce or increase car spaces in the station car park itself. Nor does the plan make any reference to the loss of spaces which will occur when the replacement for Phoenix House is built. These changes may well increase the pressure on spaces within the multi-storey. Facilities at the railway station frontage: The proposals include a small dropping off area of about 8 spaces. We don’t know if the consultants visited the area at peak times but if they did they would have seen that 8 spaces are totally inadequate. Furthermore spaces such as these are not just for dropping off passengers. Drivers also wait for trains to arrive and could be there for several minutes. The result will be congestion on the highway with vehicles stopping to allow passengers to alight or embark and, if there are no spaces available, waiting for trains to arrive. We assume that holiday coaches, train replacement buses etc will be required to use the bus stop. We have grave doubts as to whether the space allowed will be sufficient. We also foresee problems with the taxi rank proposals. Access to the rank will only be possible for cabs arriving from the west. Cabs from the east will need to go all round the one-way system in order to access the rank safely. That is unlikely to be popular with either the cab companies or their customers (who will have to pay more for the privilege). Phasing of Works: We consider that the phasing of the construction works requires very careful consideration. Inevitably the developers will want to build the new housing first since that will be an important revenue stream. But if that happens the effect on the town generally will be devastating. It is in our view vital that the multi-storey car park should be completed first so that at no point is parking for shoppers unavailable. If this point is ignored the High Street will inevitably suffer. It is also in our view vital that any new road works are completed in advance of other construction works. Sittingbourne is already notorious as a traffic black spot and thoughtless programming will only make matters worse. Prospects for the High Street: One of the objectives of the regeneration scheme is to improve the economy of the High Street area. Unfortunately we can see little in the scheme which will actually improve matters. High Street shops will be faced with increased competition from the retail area planned for the north side of the railway and we can see little sign of any plan to improve access to the High Street from the redeveloped area or to link the two areas together. A new shopping arcade between the High Street and the redeveloped area might have helped (emerging on the High Street via the existing archway between 110 and 112 High Street) but reliance seems to be placed on attracting shoppers to the area by means of the new cinema and restaurants. But most of their customers will arrive in the evening when the High Street shops are closed. The Retailers’ Association will no doubt be expressing their views on this aspect of the scheme. Travel Plan: It seems to us that the entire premise for the traffic assessment has been made on false assumptions. The scheme is totally reliant on very low car useage and optimistically seems to assume that people will travel to and from the centre by public transport, on foot or by cycle. We note the suggestion that there should be a “Walk to Work Week” to persuade people to adopt a healthier life-style. While this may be a commendable thought we doubt whether it will persuade many people to change their habits. People who are in a hurry to catch commuter trains or who do not wish to be carrying heavy shopping for long distances are hardly likely to give up their vehicles. Air Quality: The concentration of traffic in the railway station/multi-storey car park area is we fear likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of air pollution in certain weather conditions. This will be unwelcome news for the people expected to take advantage of the public square area. In short, therefore, while we consider the scheme has much to commend it, a good deal more thought is required to some aspects to make it fit the particular circumstances of Sittingbourne. Yours faithfully, Malcolm Moore Vice-Chairman
Posted on: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 16:58:59 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015