Q-D4.1: Do you agree that this is an appropriate range of topics for a policy on the design of safe and attractive streets?
Agreed these are appropriate range of topics. No further comments
No answer given
No answer given
The policy should ensure that the needs of users with mobility constraints (mobility scooters, buggies) are considered and provided for. Clear accessible routes must be provided from the outset from all parts of the development to shops, schools, community buildings, open spaces, bus stops. Many complaints have been made about the lack of dropped kerbs at Meon Vale which should have been checked at the outset. Paved footways should be provided around all streets. Some streets have part paved part grassed areas which is difficult for people with mobility constraints and for parents with buggies and young children to navigate. Young children cannot understand why they have to walk in the road in these cases.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Tree planting should be a far higher priority. However, more importantly, existing trees should not be destroyed to enable development.
Also add biodiversity and introduction of trees, planting etc to soften streets and retain rural character.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
I do not agree with legible street layout, minimising the use of dead-end cul de sacs, I think that a cul de sac is a safe and attractive layout, it also means that residents would not have regular passing traffic- it would be a 'quieter' environment to live in. Street tree planting does give an attractive street scene, but only if there are deep verges, to reduce the incidence of tree damage to roads and pavements. Wide, avenue type streets will mean a reduction in housing density,no bad thing but when space is at a premium the developments would have to be even larger, not so good. Would consider a variety of green spaces , interspersed through the developments to be more appropiate.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
As indicated in earlier sections, a stronger reference to accessible and inclusive design would be welcomed to ensure that wider spread of need is met. It is essential that as a minimum standard, design is meeting the requirements for wheelchair accessibility, but ultimately spaces should be accessible to all types of walking and wheeling. The RSC would also highlight the need for using public spaces to increase the cultural capacity of the area, and to do with thoughtful placemaking approaches that put local communities at the heart of space development.
The southernmost corner of the new Tachbrook Country Park is an absolute disgrace in terms of safety for lone women. It's as if it's been designed to be as shadowy as possible for lone joggers, dog walkers or walkers. It has high hedges, a line of trees and fenced off allotments, all next to a car park which you have to pass through to get there. The current standards are clearly not enough as that got through planning despite it being brought up in objection comments.
You didn't mention lighting. Dark night skies are important for circadian rhythms of both plants and animals (including humans) and nocturnal animals, so I am in favour of street lights going off at midnight. However, in higher crime areas it may be necessary to have street lights or smart lights that are movement triggered. There should also be clear direction on the permissible wavelength of light emitted by street lights and the lights should have hoods to direct light to where it is needed and minimise light pollution.
No answer given
No answer given
Prioritise the needs of those engaged in active travel – i.e. pedestrians and cyclists (links to and supports the underpinning of 20-minute neighbourhoods) Ensure streets and public spaces feel overlooked, safe and inclusive Please please these are key!
This range of topics is a minimum. The Local Plan and anyone building as a result of the Plan should speak to and learn from architects who are already working successfully to create attractive streets and public spaces, for example Peter Barber Architects and Mae Architects, as well as Mary Duggan and Alison Brooks referred to in Q-D1.2. Such architects maximise density potential whilst still creating safe and attractive spaces. Such an approach would negate the need for density requirements as set out in Q-D3 and is arguably a more realistic and effective way of approaching the issue.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No comment
No answer given