The Solution
Evidence & Transparency
Anticipating that the scheme might need to be determined at Appeal, we advised our client that we should not only double-down on the rigour of our assessment but that we should make a point of being seen to be the party willing to engage, compromise and adapt throughout the process. That would no doubt be found more palatable to an Inspector where the counter position had been more obstructive and less open to resolution – and this setting us up to take a more professional, objective tone to any appeal proceedings.
But it wasn’t just for strategy reasons. Our business is built around a number of values, including transparency and openness. This extends to the way we approach our work and engage with our peers. This doesn’t mean conceding to unreasonable requests. It means engaging in a dialogue to understand the issues in the hope of finding a commercially optimum solution.
Accepting our advice, we were commissioned to provide a detailed Pedestrian Environment Review (PERS) audit to assess the quality of the footpath infrastructure in the immediate vacinity of the site, enabling an evidencial and objective approach to be taken to address concerns the Authority had regarding the safety of pedestrian crossing movements. This identified one of the crossings on one of the junction approaches to be substandard and using the same software, we were able to identify a modest, targeted and cost-effective improvement that brought it to an acceptable standard.
Additional third-party data was also referenced where possible, including STRAVA heatmaps which were used to show the relative level of pedestrian and cycle use on the local network which, when combined with accident data, helped to demonstrate that there was exisiting high levels of walking and cycling in the area, and using the crossing that was of concern to the Authority, without a negative impact on safety.
Our constant focus on the end goal was rewarded during the Appeal when we were able to walk the Inspector through each stage of the process, drawing reference to objective and sometimes independant analyses, to create a clear and compelling narrative as to the adequacey of the proposals. The Council not only failed to counter this narrative but the Inspector criticised them for the lack of evidence and proper assessment.