Assessments for applications 61139 & 62170

In light of your letter this is a Freedom of Information Request for the following information,
referenced in your points in your letter, regarding Mr Young’s/the LHA assessments for applications
61139 & 62170 – 55 houses land East of South Park, Braunton:
1. 1.1 The LHA narrative from Mr Young that you agree is missing from the formal highways
1.2 The written statement of the basis for which Mr Young formed the agreement with the
developer leading to the ‘recommendation of approval’.
1.3 Date and evidence of the ‘recommendation of approval’.
2. 2.1 The documented evidence of the considerations made by Mr Young to the NPPF & both
Manual for Streets.
2.2 An explanation as to exactly what changed to ‘the context in which the sites are
considered’ and how the change now alters the Inspector’s considerations in 2007.
3. The written details of how Mr Young/the LHA assessed the site as travel sustainable.
4. The evidence of how the ‘certain matters’ ‘were resolved’ so that the scheme could be
‘considered acceptable’ to the satisfaction of the LHA.
5. 5.1 The guidelines which state that traffic counts can be under-taken once in a ‘neutral’
5.2 I quote from Technical Report 19201/1, April 2017 Page 26:
“The indication within the TA was that these periods and days were chosen as this
represented a peak event but there is no substantiation of this assertion within the TA,
and this is a significant failing of the submitted TA. Seemingly additional data was
collected in school term time but not presented in the TA as detailed below. The data
period is not representative using the advice in the companion guide to the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG). No data for
typical conditions have been provided.”
Under this basis, please provide Mr Young’s/the LHA’s reasoning for ‘robustness’ of the TS.
6. Mr Young’s assessment document which concluded that the developer’s Transport Statement
is ‘robust’.
7. 7.1 The guidelines and procedures that direct/guide the LHA to assess the content of
objections by weighing up appeal decisions and potential incurred costs.
7.2 The workings out used by Mr Young when noting the objections and weighing up this
7.3 An explanation of how the potential cost to the Council of this pre-determined
assessment from a judicial review is weighed up against the potential cost to the Council
from unsustained objections in an appeal situation.
7.4 The reasoning behind not declaring this pecuniary interest to the public in the LHA’s
decision making process of assessing objections.
9. The full assessments done by Mr Young to assess the Highways and road sustainability when
it was part of his remit (see point 3).
10. The evidence, with regard to material planning considerations, as to how Mr Young
considered this ‘major’ development, and the Highways impact on the local road network.
11. The evidence of Mr Young’s considerations for the safety of road users and pedestrians in
relation to this new development on the existing road network.
12. As you agree that traffic movements per dwelling will be similar and that ‘each application is
considered on its own merits’, the written evidence of how Mr Young assessed the South Park
site in view of these figures.
13. An explanation as to how the Transport Statement ‘adequately’ addresses, and how the
application mitigates residual cumulative impact, in the following context:
refer Technical Report 19201/1 April 2017 P37:
“That there is a severe impact in the following regards:
a) The cumulative impact at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals and adjacent
A361 / Heanton Street junction,
b) The cumulative impact along Wrafton Road due to the additional
vehicles generated by the proposal conflicting with other vehicles on the
section of Wrafton Road that is effectively single lane working due to the
presence of parked cars, and
c) The impact on the section of Lower Park Road between Barn Field
Close, and South Park that is also a shared surface”.
17. 17.1 Mr Young’s ‘formal’ comments on travel sustainability in the pre-application stage (see
points 3 & 9).
17.2 The date of the formal ‘practice’ change and the supporting documents that define
these changes.
17.3 Confirmation as to whether your statement means that the LHA’s assessment of
Highways and travel sustainability, prior to this recent shift of responsibility from the LHA to
the LPA and by virtue of this shift, is no longer valid.
17.4 An explanation as to why Mr Young neglected to inform me, in the emails he did send
me, that it was no longer his responsibility to assess Highways & Travel sustainability and that
I should have been contacting the LPA for this assessment.
17.5 Mr Young’s job description, roles and responsibilities for assessing major applications:
a. before the formal practice change
b. after the formal practice change

A full response is set out in the link below: