Say no to the latest Power Hub proposal

Another development proposed on the Power Hub site on St Peters St which will rely on increased car journeys in the most gridlocked part of town where there little pedestrian access. The Power Hub is on the left in the photo which was taken on a Saturday last month just after 2pm. This is normal, and yes you can see the tailback from the London exit overlaps the one to the bridge.

While I have no problem with soft play areas, the Power Hub needs to be turned into much needed affordable homes which would not generate significant traffic flows.

I have made the comments below and please read the statement by Donna Greenan and KCC too.

I strongly object to this planning application based on the following points:

1. That applicant claims that the maximum capacity would be for 100 children (Planning Statement 5.13), that maximum stay at weekends would be 2 hours and that average car occupancy would be 2 to 3 children. Should children be dropped off and picked up later this would mean an additional 50 car journeys per hour. As peak time would be weekends where the length of time to exit the area by car exceeds one hour due to the regular gridlock from Range / Asda, an additional 50 car journey would not be possible.

2. The inability to collect children by car at the weekend would pose a significant risk to the children.

3. The proposed alternations under the 2014 supermarket plan have not be made.

4. The footpath from St Peters St is not suitable for pedestrians and reduces to 30cm wide at one point. Push chairs users have to walk in the road. This poses a danger to children especially.

5. The footpaths from Buckland Hill direction are equally dangerous. People coming through Whatman Park only have a 30cm footpath or shared road space on a blind corner through the tunnel. Those travelling down Buckland Hill have to cross the road twice on a blind corner or walk down the road itself. Those coming from the High Level Bridge have to come down approx 20 step which would not be possible with a pushchair. All of these routes pose a danger to children.

6. Should all children arrive by car and manage to access the site through the gridlock outside then the remaining 30 spaces (after use by staff and other units per D Greenan's submission). would not be adequate if 50% of parents decided to stay on site which given the proposed facilities seems possible.

Please reject this proposal