The proposals for developing Princes Parade include diverting the existing road away from the seafront and along the canal. This was subject to a separate consultation ie not part of the planning application process.The consultation ran from May 10th until June 7th.
If you raised an objection the DoT will have forwarded your comment to the District council (the applicant) who are supposed to contact you to try to resolve your objection. Please forward any correspondence from the council to the DoT email@example.com quoting ref NATTRAN/SE/S247/3254 but do NOT agree to anything the council suggests. We would hope that there will be sufficient objections that the Secretary of State will need to hold a public inquiry should he be minded to grant the order.
You can read a copy of the draft notice here: Draft_Notice – Stopping up the Road
The draft order here: Draft_Order – Stopping the Road
and the draft plan here: Draft_Plan – Stopping up the Road
The order is being sought under section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which allows the Secretary of State for Transport to stop up a road if he/she is satisfied that it is necessary in order for development to be carried out. So the key to fighting this is to show that it is not necessary to the development.
The Dept of Transport have said they will ignore any responses that pertain predominantly to the impact of the development rather than the stopping up of the road.
On the application form Stopping Up – Application Form FHDC state “By relocating the road to the rear of the site,we can generate a vehicle free link from the proposed leisure centre and housing development to the beach and existing promenade”.
We suggested therefore that you comment along the lines that this development is unacceptable and creates significant harm, but if the development were to be granted planning permission there is no overriding need to move the road as the proposed buildings could be served from the existing road. It is therefore not necessary for it to be stopped up and realigned for this development to take place.
Some guidance we have read suggests that as well as a necessity test, a merits test could be applied as well:
“In the exercise of that discretion the relevant authority is obliged to take into account any significant disadvantages or losses flowing directly from the stopping up order which have been raised, either for the public generally or for those individuals whose actionable rights of access would be extinguished by the order. In such a case they must also take into account any countervailing advantages to the public or those individuals, along with the planning benefits of, and the degree of importance attaching to, the development. They must then decide whether any such disadvantages or losses are of such significance or seriousness that they should refuse to make the order”