The Council have uploaded the Designers Response Report to the planning portal. You’ll see it at the bottom of the documents list for some reason and it’s called “RESPONSE REPORT – STAGE 2 RSA”. If you scroll all the way down to “Appendix B – Decision Log”, you’ll see the response to the concerns raised in the safety audit.
In a nutshell, the developers propose to do nothing to mitigate the NEW risks they introduce with this proposed change to the junction design.
The risks identified in the Safety Audit were;
- graze-type collisions,
- head-on collisions
- pedestrian strikes by HGVs
We should not be surprised by this, as it is consistent with developers disrespect for public safety in name of profit.
So if you happen to think that this is a damning indictment of Barratt Homes, then please do feel free to object to the proposals on the grounds;
A) the developers do not propose to mitigate the risks as per their own Road Safety Audit and therefore the changes will introduce NEW serious risks to the junction that will impact pedestrians and vehicles.
B) the developers use the excuse that they would need to use more third party land at number 243 Longton Road to mitigate one of the risks and this is not feasible. The developers OWN this land, so this claim is ridiculous.
C) the developers are hiding behind the Inspectors rationale for granting planning permission. However the Inspector was not qualified in Highways Engineering and the detailed design must be signed off by the Local Highways Authority as technically safe and based on sound engineering principles, which of course the design the inspector ‘approved’ meets neither of these criteria.
D) the developers have not yet submitted a capacity assessment that follows best practice guidance and sound engineering principles which includes the modelling principles of TRL. Therefore the base model they rely on, is not fit for purpose and results in serious Highway Safety Risks.