A notice has appeared this week about a proposed new pelican crossing. The new crossing was suggested by the developer who wants to build 160 houses in a field bordering South Abingdon.
When the planning inspector overturned the decision of the Vale of White Horse District Council, and allowed those houses, he did stipulate that traffic mitigation measures be put in before the houses were built. So, if allowed, these crossings will be funded by the developer.
The scheme would involve adding a pelican crossing 25 metres from the end of Ock Street. The intended effect of this is to make it easier for vehicles turning left out of Drayton Road.
Then the existing Pelican Crossing at the other side of the double mini roundabout, put in for students going to Larkmead School, would be moved 60 metres further along the Marcham Road. I believe a barrier would be put in place at the existing crossing, with a gate – to allow access to the MG Park.
This proposal would increase the number of crossings along Ock Street and Marcham Road from 5 to 6.
Any objections should be made by 7 February 2014 by email to Anthony.Kirkwood@Oxfordshire.gov.uk
or my post to:
Anthony Kirkwood
Road Safety Engineering Team
Oxfordshire County Council
Speedwell House
Speedwell Street
Oxford
OX1 1NE
The decision is likely to be made on 27th March.
I can see the logic that the new crossing will allow more vehicles out of Drayton road, however Ock street already jams up so surely this will just transfer the problem from one road to another.
it’s worth a try; but it should be tried first before the permission to build was granted!
…wasn’t the permission to build granted on the proviso that the crossings actually allieviated the traffic situation….not simply that the building of a crossing will permit the build…?
If you get my drift…
Or have i missrememderated that…?
From the Abingdon Blog July 11 2013
(The planning inspector thinks there is a real need for more housing in Abingdon.
But he says no development should happen until there is a guarantee that the traffic mitigation measures are to be put in place – that is the additional crossing of Ock Street to the east of Drayton Road, to “avoid severe transport effects that would otherwise arise from the development.”)
So just maybe if enough objections are sent in to the County Council then they might decide not to go ahead
with the scheme and thus the houses could not be built.
Is that correct ?
– I’m not sure of the procedures here regarding carriage way crossings. I guess its unlike planning applications where interested parties are informed and invited to object. (Searching the OCC web site for the plans drew a blank) So we need to somehow spread the word and not just to South Abingdon, but to a much wider area.
Who makes the decision and on what basis ?
Hi Daniel. The planning inspector said …
“No development shall take place until the earlier of these events has taken place:
a) The local planning authority has received written confirmation, issued by Oxfordshire County Council, that highway alterations are to be carried out comprising the introduction of an additional crossing of Ock Street to the east of Drayton Road (as shown on drawing VN50148-ECC-SK-0002 rev A and including any alterations thereto arising from the detailed design of the works) and the relocation of the existing crossing further west on Marcham Road (as shown on drawing VN50148-ECC-SK-0003 and including any alterations thereto arising from the detailed design of the works);
b) Highway alterations have been implemented comprising the introduction of an additional crossing of Ock Street to the east of Drayton Road (as shown on drawing VN50148-ECC-SK-0002 rev A and including any alterations thereto arising from the detailed design of the works) and the relocation of the existing crossing further west on Marcham Road (as shown on drawing VN50148-ECC-SK-0003 and including any alterations thereto arising from the detailed design of the works), and the associated traffic signals are first in operation.
Reason: to avoid severe transport effects that would otherwise arise from the development. “
I have encountered pedestrian crossings elsewhere in UK that are that close to a road junction. The effect is to prevent traffic leaving the junction, thereby stalling traffic on ALL connecting roads while the crossing is active. It could also increase risk because drivers will be distracted by the crossing hazard when they should still be concentrating on the junction.
Whether new houses are involved or not, the proposed placing of a pelican crossing so close to that daft three-way mini-roundabout system at the West end of Ock Street represents incompetent traffic ‘engineering’.
By all means try it as a temporary measure for 6 months but to install it permanently on the pious hope of traffic alleviation is crass.
Any local resident can respond to the consultation with reasons for or against.
I think this will make queues on Ock Street worse without necessarily making Drayton Road any better and will object on that basis.
Objections relating to the Drayton Road planning decision itself won’t be valid.
I have asked questions about exactly how the decision will be made but I believe it will be a decision by the County Council Cabinet member responsible for Highways matters.
My understanding is that the crossing have to be given the go-ahead for the development to then proceed, there was no provision in the Inspectors decision for it having to actually work.
My concern is that shifting the crossings will reduce the likelihood of kids walking up drayton road from south abingdon then on to spring road to the secondary schools, particularly larkmead, will bypass the crossing if it’s not in their direct path. Ignoring the traffic considerations i think that this increase in risk to child safety should be grounds for objection
“…there was no provision in the Inspectors decision for it having to actually work.”
Administrative Steamrolller is already mobile. Once the houses are built, the situation is irreversible. Good luck Abingdon.
If you don’t actually resort to Civil Disobedience, try putting a Lollipop crossing at that junction for a few days (before the final planning decision) and see what chaos ensues.
I kind of agree with spike… Surely putting in a temporary crossing for a few months – as well as temporarily “moving” the other one, is a sensible, erudite, worthwhile exercise to at least get some data and feedback regarding how successful these mitigation measures might be.
Not least, a few pounds spent on temporary measures might save many many pounds being spent longer term on permenant measures.
Oh, hold on….sorry….if it were about common sense…we wouldn’t be at this point in the first place. And as for “not comitting large amounts of public money on schemes that don’t work…” …why spend less when you can waste more!
Of course, these crossings are the idea of someone. Who? If the crossings resolve all the traffic issues here I want to know who to congratulate on a job well done. Likewise…if these measures monumentally fail…i want recompense, compensation, scheme reversal, heads on a plate, accountability and someone to be held responsible!
I fear however…we all know what’s going to happen…
Most of the street lights on the south side of Marcham Road have been out since October, despite repeated calls to the council, plunging pedestrians on that side into darkness. It would be nice if they could be fixed before work on the crossings begins …
Anthony Kirkwood has kindly sent me a copy of the proposed plans.
I shall certainly be sending in a very strong and lengthy objection to this scheme.
I was at the enquiry meeting and my impression was that housing would be allowed despite any knock on effects to traffic. How is the effect going to be mitigated by the crossing as it will prevent traffic coming down the Drayton Road and turning right to go into the town? The lights will still prevent the flow of traffic coming down the Drayton Road. I have to drive to Drayton every morning and on the frequent event of the A34 being closed traffic backs up in some instances right back through Steventon. Smoking mirrors comes to mind.
So what happens when there’s nobody at the crossing needing to cross ……. traffic still can’t get out of Drayton Road.
Maybe the developer will provide a person to stand there all day and press the button when traffic builds up……..
Spike, Daniel and others – yes, it’s barmy, and we may not be able to stop it, but we can do our best to.
The goo thing is that the decision about the crossing is for the County Council to take, not a Planning Inspector.
Iain and Janet – those are both very good arguments to use.
Daniel – they were the idea of the developers who want to build the housing off Drayton Road.
back when I went to larkmead the current crossing wasn’t there – you literally had to dash across between traffic.
seems a bit silly to move it again as kids being kids, they will probably be too lazy to walk further to the crossing.
Regardless of the housing development their affix congestion is caused partly by the design of intersection itself. What it needs is a full set of traffic lights with turning arrows, which will allow eg. – left turn from Drayton Rd and right turn from Ock Street into Drayton Rd. Perhaps a rethink of the double round about needs to be done as this would provide pedestrian access at the lights and remove the need for the other crossing. I thought previous posts indicated that the developer was to foot the bill?
Ops typo – should read – the issue of traffic congestion…..
Please object in the strongest terms, the more people that do, the more likely things will be changed. Everyone can see what a bad plan this housing will be, the problem as I see it is that the traffic officers will narrowly look at the traffic as it is now, and not look more widely at the “what ifs”.
The most sensible suggestion would be a 6 month trial and the impacts then studied. No-one can really object to that, and this would provide proper data about what is likely to happen.
I do like the comment about the children. This is well worth making.
Although I too will be objecting, and will encourage others to do so…your faith in the planning system James is…commendable!
The double roundabout is the only thing that keeps the traffic flowing- put in lights and see it slow down even more (ie traffic is worse since lights at Coxeters were put in). Why do people have a problem with the roundabout? A great design!
Move the crossing by all means, but hands off our roundabouts 🙂
Couldn’t agree more regarding roundabouts. They were originally installed at crossroads to eliminate traffic lights so the re-instatement of traffic lights on roundabouts seems to have defeated the original objective.
While I’m on the traffic subject when did pedestrian crossings become a traffic management tool?
I thought straight away about the impact on children crossing the road as I work with teens. There’s no way they will walk further up the Marcham Road because they have no sense of danger and every desire to look cool in front of peers. To move the existing crossing is potty.
As someone who lived in South Abingdon before they put in the mini-roundabouts (and no it wasn’t in the days of horse-drawn carriages) I would agree that you tamper with them at your peril. I don’t remember the details, but do remember that they tried various things and the mini-roundabouts were by a long way the best.
Given the current financial situation where the highways authorities seem unable to maintain the existing roads in safe and good repair, expecting anything which is going require more than minimal attention seems unlikely. Short of some serious accidents (sorry, to be crude about this: deaths), road layouts are not going to be changed.
The existing traffic negotiates the system fairly well (although some bus drivers regularly ignore Highway Code rule 188: Avoid making U-turns at miniroundabouts), and there is no reason to think that this will change significantly – even with increased traffic.
What will increase is the wear and tear on the road surface as trafffic volume rises. It remains to be seen whether the money will be found to address the consequent stress to motorists as potholes become craters.
Putting crossing close to miniroundabouts seems to be a popular choice with our Highways Committee, so we are going to have to find very powerful arguments to stop the housing development. I suspect that a final decision on crossings etc. will not really include a consideration on traffic grounds, since the housing development does not fall in the remit of the Highways Committee (or so some Jobsworth will argue).
I hope that we can get the Highways Committee to conduct a serious trial before making a firm commitment. Otherwise, we will suffer from the failure to do joined-up thinking exemplified by lack of a coherent development plan – a vacuum the developers ruthlessly exploited.
I hope that local councillors will encourage those hoping to represent us at Westminster to be stand up and be counted. So far they have been visible. Now they need to be effective.
If they want to increase the ease of traffic turning left out of the Drayton Rd, why don’t they widen the road at that point? It would only take a yard or so to give two proper lanes – or is the wall, effectively still part of the Bridge, an ancient monument??
Sorry, to amplify my earlier comments: all wheeled road users suffer from the dreadful roads. I cycle and drive; it’s not always fun!
esromac – The suggestion to use the current bridge for three lanes – so that there could be right turning and left turning lanes heading North has been put on the table in the past, with pedestrian bridges added on the sides (as the County Council have done in other places). All sorts of excuses have been put forward against the idea but I’ve never been convinced by any of them. The Town Council, which owns the land where the MG Garden is, made it clear that they would give up a bit of land for it if that was needed.
The points regarding children not walking up the road to use the crossing in order to get up to Larkmead are all valid and must be addressed by the erection of metal barriers all around the roundabout to prevent kids using the island opposite The White Horse.
Can someone explain why traffic lights cant be installed where the two mini roundabouts presently are? I have lived in Abingdon for ten years x do not remember prior to them? Wouldn’t it work better? Would we not get a better flow of traffic all ways? Or am I missing something?
Surely the northbound slip road onto the A34 at Steventon/Drayton must be looked at again. Never understood why it was closed in the ’70s.
I would suggest that any objections to this need to be framed in terms of specific technical issues, not just general sentiment or anecdote, i.e. quality rather than quantity of response. The developer expects a presumption in favour of approval, and the CC almost certainly faces judicial review if it dismisses it for the ‘wrong’ reasons.
Valid objections might be:
1. Safety considerations arising from moving the existing crossing and locating the new crossing so close to the roundabouts;
2. Impacts of possible displacement of congestion to Ock Street; specifically on NO2 emissions and air pollution. Are these quantifiable? At least part of Ock Street falls within the pollution monitoring area.