We are pleased to report that the planning application has been rejected.  However, we understand that the applicant will appeal this decision.

The following is a letter to our local councillors from Stewart Burgess on behalf of Danescourt Community Association regarding the OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 48 DWELLINGS on LAND AT RADYR COURT ROAD, DANESCOURT, CARDIFF.  You can see more details on the council website here.

Dear Kirsty & Gareth,

I am dismayed by the analysis of the highway objections presented in the report to the Planning Committee in respect of the above application to the Cardiff Council for Planning Permission.

In particular, whilst the report correctly states at 8.13 that "Manual for Streets" outlines guidance on the specific subject of shared surface streets, it fails to point out that "Manual for Streets" does not say is that such shared surface streets can be provided with narrow carriageways where pedestrians will have to do battle with two way traffic of all types. The report makes no mention of the clause contained in "Manual for Streets" that indicates that the minimum width of carriageway for two way delivery traffic is 5.5 metres, which does not compare favourably with the available carriageway width of as little as the 4.38 metres width quoted in the Transport Statement that accompanied this application. The analysis has also made no mention of the dangers to the potential visually impaired future users of this proposed shared surface or that the Royal National Institurte for the Blind and the Guidedogs Association for the Blind both have severe reservations about such proposals. I note that neither of these organisations have been consulted about this proposal.

There is also the height problem at the railway bridge that the report fails to mention. The available headroom is stated within the Transport Statement to be only 3.73 metres or 12'-3". The allowable maximum height of road vehicles is currently 15'-0" and the standard headroom under a bridge is 15'-6". This one is therefore significantly substandard. Anything having less than this 15'-6" clearance has to be signed. A large furniture van is in the order of 13'-6" tall and a normal delivery van can be of the order of 12'-9" tall, so neither of these vehicles would be able to pass under the railway bridge. For assistance I include a link to a website giving typical vehicle dimensions, which shows a delivery vehicle 12'-0" tall, but also states that dimensions are only approximate.  A 12'-0" tall vehicle should not attempt to pass under anything having a vertical clearance of less than 12'-6". 
dorsetvehiclerentals.co.uk/vdimen_details.php?id=21

The report also fails to mention the consequence of any large vehicle that has failed to pass under the bridge having to reverse some distance along Radyr Court Road before reaching a location where it could turn around in order to depart. Such events will cause considerable difficulty to any other road users present at the same time.

In addition the report fails to mention the statutory duty placed on all Highway Authorities by the Traffic Management Act 2004 to ease the flow of vehicular traffic on its roads. Clearly if this proposed development goes ahead, it will contribute further traffic to Bridge Street which is already severely congested at peak periods.  The report fails to recommend any measure to overcome this situation.

Please feel free to forward this as you may think appropriate.    

Kind regards

S M Burgess
BSc MBA CEng CEnv FICE FCIHT MCMI
Danescourt Community Association