A number of properties on the planning layout appear to have rear access footpaths some of which may even be shared. We believe that this could lead to higher levels of burglary, fly tipping, disputes between neighbours, etc. Therefore, the use of rear access footpaths should be avoided. According to Secured by Design Homes Guide 2024.
Research studying the distribution of burglary in terraced housing with open rear access footpaths has shown that up to 85% of entries occurred at the back of the house…It is preferable that footpaths are not located at the rear of properties. If they are essential to give access to the rear of properties they must be gated. The gates must be placed at the entrance to the footpath, as near to the front building line as possible, so that attempts to climb them will be in full view of the street. Where possible the street lighting scheme should be designed to ensure that the gates are well illuminated…Any gate providing access to the rear of dwellings should be designed to prevent it from being easily climbed over, crawled under or forced open and it must allow good natural surveillance of the footpath from the street.’
In addition, due to the site’s proximity to M6 J3, measures should be taken to discourage County Lines activity. Therefore, communal parking areas should be avoided. Ideally, all parking should be within the dwelling boundary and if designed to be adjacent to or between units, a gable end window should be considered to allow residents an unrestricted view over their vehicles. Where communal parking areas are necessary, bays should be sited in small groups, close and adjacent to homes, be within view of active rooms, such as kitchens and living rooms, and allocated to individual properties. There are concerns that some of the arrangements within the parking strategy plan could encourage County Lines activity especially those for the 13 unallocated visitor parking bays.
This ePetition runs from 04/11/2024 to 30/12/2024.
41 people have signed this ePetition.