Plans for 159 houses in a field south of Abingdon was rejected by the VWHDC (Vale of White Horse District Council) Planning department without even going to committee. The plans were then allowed on appeal by an external inspector so long as some pedestrian traffic lights were installed on Marcham Road and Ock Street, so that traffic in South Abingdon would be no worse than before the houses.
The responses to a consultation on those traffic lights are to be considered at a meeting of the county council’s cabinet member for environment on March 27. The consultation received 125 responses, mostly objections and concerns. The Town Council has objected but not VWHDC.
However the County Council officers are recommending approval, and has not given much weight to all the objections to the scheme. The idea of a trial was also put forward but the County Council officer thinks that would just confuse people.
A new sign has already gone up in front of the field suggesting that the land has now been acquired by the developer who will actually build those houses. Hallam, the company who got the rights to build, are presumably just a specialist is getting planning permission.
It is still for County Councillors to decide, so have Taylor Wimpey jumped the gun?
P.S. VWHDC did object but it did not get into the report. Mindful of the VWHDC objections, The Oxfordshire County Council Cabinet member considered the matter and then indicated that he was minded to reject the application for the lights.
They want evidence ?
Just imagine that the pedestrian crossing is in place and have a cohort of (brave) citizens and wheelchairs regularly crossing there at peak period over the days before that 27 March meeting.
If that demonstrates an improvement in traffic flow, then I might accept that local opinion has been misplaced.
Retired people who drive might also be induced to simulate the extra traffic expected from the proposed development.
P.S. The Police may need to witness this experiment to minimise road rage events.
Reading the County Council assessment I can see why the board has gone up – it’s a done deal – I guess if the traffic gets significantly worse the new houses will be demolished?
Why did the Vale not object? Realised there was no point?
The local politicians who procrastinated in getting the local plan in place should be named and shamed – they are the root cause of this ill considered development being allowed to proceed.
Backstreeter is correct in saying that the OCC report says the Vale has raised no objection. However, I do not believe that the report is up-to-date, as at the full Vale Counci Meeting on 19th Feb the following motion was proposed :
Motion proposed by Councillor Jim Halliday, seconded by Cllr Jeanette Halliday
‘The Council notes that the Oxfordshire County Council is currently considering installing an extra pedestrian crossing in Ock Street, Abingdon and moving the location of the existing crossing in Marcham Road. Council is concerned that this will not only cause potential safety issues, but may also have air quality implications due to the likelihood of increased queuing traffic – particularly in Marcham Road, Ock Street, Spring Road and Drayton Road. It therefore asks the Chief Executive to relay these concerns to both the OCC Highways Team and the County Councillors representing Abingdon.’
In supporting the motion, councillors believed that the county’s proposal was a poor attempt to reduce traffic. It would cause additional air pollution in this part of the town, would make crossing the road even more dangerous for pedestrians, and would exacerbate traffic problems.
Council unanimously supported the motion, and asked the chief executive to object in the strongest terms to the county council’s proposals.
We plan to attend the OCC meeting on Thursday and will ensure that the Vale Councillors’ strong opposition is made clear.
I really don’t understand what all the fuss is about. Everything will be wonderful for the residents of South Abingdon.
If you are worried about the impact of the changes, I refer you to the County Coucil Officer who assures us ‘I am therefore satisfied that the Appellant‟s modelling gives adequately reliable predictions’.
And the modelling states:
‘Relocating the [pedestrian] crossing [in Marcham Rd] would therefore be expected to result in a substantial reduction in queues on Drayton Road in the AM peak hour, with the model showing a queue of 5 vehicles, compared to observed queues in excess of 70 vehicles for much of the hour.’
So there you have it. Just a five car queue at the peak of the morning rush hour. It must be true because the experts tell us so
Why can’t a temporary set of traffic lights be positioned for a trial period .? This would surely prove the point one way or the other.
Because Max, that would prove that these clever people and their traffic models know bugger all and are in jobs where they can get it wrong with no consequence to them- just the poor folks who they mess about
We have already had a cyclist killed in Preston Road. Outside the shop displaying the Vale boards making a case for more housing I got talking to some people who have to drive down the Drayton Road. They said that they and a lot of other other people use Preston Road and Saxton Road as a rat run to avoid the queue of traffic along the Drayton Road. We all know that the Pelican crossing will make no difference to the queuing traffic along the Drayton Road. It seems to me that the Government are encouraging planners and developers to ride rough shod over local residents. So much for ‘the big society’ where everyone has a say about their environment. What a load of rubbish.
I will also be attending the meeting as the local County Councillor to reiterate many of the points that have been made.
I will press the point that if they are absolutely confident that the developers’ traffic modelling is correct, they can’t possibly have any objection to proving it with a trial.
Can we take it that if these crossings are approved that there will be no need for the diamond interchange at lodge hill as all the traffic problems in south abingdon will be sorted at a fraction of the cost.
…..so who is accountable if the crossing plan is implimented, the development goes ahead and the traffic model is subsequently proved to be woefully incorrect?
The decision will be taken by the County Council Cabinet Member for the Environment, Cllr David Nimmo-Smith, on behalf of Oxfordshire County Council.
http://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=173
If things turn out in the way you suggest, I guess responsibility would be shared between him, for making this decision, the planning inspector, for making his decision, and the Vale Council, for not having got a robust local plan in place soon enough.
This topic could be the proverbial last straw that breaks Abingdon’s back. Nimmo-Smith’s blurb says: “He is an environmental campaigner and believes in local democracy”.
– watch this space.
I do wonder how objective a Henley resident will be in this very local issue.
I do hope that Neil gets heard.
One hopes that Cllr David Nimmo-Smith has fully researched this issue. ‘a queue of 5 cars’ is a very precise measurable. It would take a very brave or foolhardy person to stake their reputation on making such a decision without fully considering or checking the validity of the claim.
I asked about the crossing and was told the following:
Anthony Kirkwood forwarded your comments on the A415 Abingdon Proposed Pelican Crossings: Public Consultation onto me.
The relocation of the Marcham Road crossing and the installation of a crossing on Ock Street were proposed by a Developer, Hallam Land Management, as part of a planning application and subsequent planning appeal for the development of 159 homes to the east of Drayton Road. At the planning appeal into the application an inspector concluded that these crossings are required to mitigate the traffic impact of the development on the Drayton Road / Marcham Road junction.
One query which you raised was the possibility of conducting a trial. I have talked to my manager and to colleagues who were at the planning appeal who have confirmed that the traffic impact of the development and of the proposed crossings was covered in detail at the appeal.
As part of the appeal process, the developer submitted the results of transport modelling to assess the impact of the proposals and the inspector ruled that he was satisfied with the results.
Unfortunately we do not feel that a trial would show different results to what the transport modelling showed and therefore will be unlikely to conduct a trial.
However, we will ensure that your objections and suggestion for a trial are included in the report on the above proposal which is due to be considered at the County Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment Decisions meeting on 27th March.
So there you have it. No matter what local people think, a survey has been done and it will all work like clockwork!
An absolute shambles.
“Unfortunately we do not feel that a trial would show different results to what the ……. modelling showed and therefore will be unlikely to conduct a trial.” It’s a good job that scientists, pharmaceutical companies, aeroplane manufacturers etc don’t have such blind faith in their modelling techniques!
Well said Hester, but is it blind faith or absolution of responsibility? It can be very easy at times to sit back and let others take decisions on our behalf with the thought that ‘it wont be my fault if it all goes wrong. After all, they are the experts’.
Let us not overlook however who commisioned these experts.
…….and those who have the responsibility to represent the overwhelming view of the constituents. I trust Mr David Nimmo-Smith is not tempted to resort to the Pontius Pilate solution.
The modelling does, of course, take account of those occasions when something happens on the A34 and all the car transporters are diverted along the Drayton Road, doesn’t it?
This has happened several times this year already. The queue of cars then normally exceeds five – often by a factor of close to 100.
Modelling (if not accompanied by trials) is just another word for guessing. The guess supporting the planning officers report is (shall we say?) optimistic.
Tell ’em, Neil!
It seems to me, that this, like the 610 houses proposed for North Abingdon, where they have already put the pedestrian crossing and are upgrading the footpath into the town (As per the conditions of the plans), is another done deal…before the consultations have taken place! We are just the ones who have to put up with it all afterwards! Not the ones to be listened too!!!
Neil can probably destroy the modelling in one question, the answer to which may be shown sadly lacking:-
“What were the Start Conditions and criteria for Validation of the traffic model used to produce these results ?”
A slightly deeper probe might be:-
“WHO Validated that traffic model, and when ?”
Good luck.
Thankfully Cllr Nimmo-Smith is from Henley – so it won’t really matter to him either way.
And let us not forget – the most important thing here is profit. Hallams profit. As long as they make a good buck – fantastic!
Could we all go and make decisions about the traffic in Henley then….? Surely that would be fair? I propose building a motorway along the riverside….anyone second that? (Ps, I have made a model, it looks very nice, and it won’t affect the residents at all.)
The Mayor of Abingdon has just tweeted that Councillor Nimmo Smith has turned down the proposal to move the crossings on OckStreet/Marcham Road !
Good to see that common sense can still prevail.
This sounds great – so, let me get this straight…the crossings are NOT moving, so does this mean that there will be NO new crossings…so this means tehre will be no traffic mitigation measures, which meand the development on Drayton Rd …will…or won’t happen…?
As I understand……..won’t happen.
Taylor Wimpey website report DraytonRoad site will be set for replaning and a new application in Spring 14
I see Taylor Wimpey have put in a retrospective planning application for the big sign at the entrance to the site. The application says it is erected on their land – I would be surprised if that was the case.
Application is here…
http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/java/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P14/V0972/A