In recent years, IPD has increasingly been instructed by clients experiencing planning delays as a result of overly prescriptive responses from Local Highway Authorities and Lead Local Flood Authorities.
Even modest, policy-compliant developments are frequently subjected to disproportionate technical scrutiny. Requests for extensive modelling, excessive visibility requirements, and generic trip rate assessments are becoming common, regardless of whether proposals materially intensify site use.
This can lead to:
Delayed planning determinations
Increased consultant and project costs
Unnecessary design revisions
Commercial uncertainty
Frustration across project teams
IPD was recently appointed to support a local golf club facing precisely this situation.
The proposal sought permission for a 25-space overflow car park to serve an established golf course. The development did not introduce a new land use, nor did it increase visitor numbers. Its purpose was simply to formalise and improve existing parking provision.
Despite the modest nature of the scheme, the Local Highway Authority issued extensive technical queries relating to:
Access design and geometry
Visibility splays
Swept path analysis
Parking demand
Trip generation and operational characteristics
Rather than defaulting to overly complex modelling or generic database assumptions, IPD applied a proportionate, evidence-led strategy grounded firmly in planning policy.
Our work included:
Real world speed surveys
We undertook on-site speed surveys to establish actual 85th percentile vehicle speeds. This ensured visibility splays were based on observed conditions rather than theoretical maximums, resulting in a realistic and defensible design.
Policy compliant access design
The access arrangement was designed in accordance with Manual for Streets, demonstrating that the largest anticipated vehicle could safely access and exit the site.
First principles trip generation analysis
Recognising that the overflow car park would primarily redistribute existing trips rather than generate new ones, we applied a first-principles assessment. This confirmed that traffic movements would remain low and well below thresholds typically associated with material highway impact.
Clear alignment with national planning policy
Crucially, our response was anchored to the policy test set out in Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that development should only be refused on highways grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or where residual cumulative impacts would be severe.
Our assessment demonstrated clearly that the proposal did not approach this threshold.
IPD provided a clear, robust and proportionate technical response that:
Addressed all Highway Authority queries comprehensively
Avoided unnecessary modelling and associated costs
Maintained alignment with national planning policy
Provided the Local Planning Authority with a defensible basis for decision-making
Most importantly, the strategy ensured the proposal could move forward without unnecessary delay or over-engineering.
This project demonstrates the value of IPD’s balanced, policy-led approach.
We understand both the technical detail and the planning framework within which decisions are made. Our focus is on applying the right level of evidence to achieve timely, robust and commercially sensible outcomes.
If your project is being delayed by disproportionate technical responses, IPD can provide clear, pragmatic advice to help move your application forward with confidence.