From: Public Access DC Comments Sent: 15 April 2008 11:42 To: DC Secretaries Subject: FW: PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (08/00899/F) Dan Birch IT Support Officer Planning Housing and Economy Cherwell District Council Ext 1872 Direct Dial (01295) 221872 mailto:danny.birch@cherwell-dc.gov.uk www.cherwell.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: publicaccess@cherwell-dc.gov.uk [mailto:publicaccess@cherwell-dc.gov.uk] Sent: 12 April 2008 11:45 To: Public Access DC Comments Subject: PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (08/00899/F) PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (08/00899/F) "John Burford" has used the PublicAccess for Planning website to submit their comments on a Planning Application. You have received this message because you are the Case Officer for this application or because this is a designated mailbox for PublicAccess comments submissions. Comments were submitted at 12/04/2008 11:45:07 Application Summary ------------------- Application Number: 08/00899/F Address: Begroke Science Park Access Road And Land Including Part OS 0004 And OS 0028 Adjacent To Woodstock Road Yarnton Oxfordshire Proposal: Widening and southern extension of access road, including public highway junctions alterations and associated work Case Officer: Bob Duxbury Customer Details ---------------- Name: John Burford Address: 15 Broad Field Road Yarnton Postcode: OX5 1UL Comments -------- Submission Type: Customer objects to the Planning Application. Comments: I refer to the Planning Statement accompanying this application and would wish to correct and/or challenge some of the assertions made by the applicant. Page 9 1(a) The position of the proposed route is in open countryside between Yarnton & Kidlington whereas the approved route is twixt Yarnton & Begbroke. As such the proposed route does not relate to the settlement pattern - rather it redefines it and creates a new unwelcome footprint for many residents. P9 1(b) Both of the compared access routes to the A44 are rural in nature - both being on the edges of the village boundary.If one is to argue that the proposed route is 'urban' then by definition it is detrimental to the residents living in close proximity. P9 2 Perhaps landscaping measures should be imoposed on the approved road retrospectively. P9 3 This is blatantly not true and is architect speak! Fields are 'less visually detrimental' than roads. The original approved route is on level land compared to the proposed road which is drops down to the A44 and would be clearly visible and a relative eyesore. Tackling congestion/delivering accessibility/safer roads/improve environment - These issues are all met by the approved east-west route. The entrance to the Science Park would be closed off for other than cyclists and pedestrians. The pedestrian crossing for the A44 needs to be sited at the end of Gravel Pits Lane as this is the major pedestrian route across the dual carriageway and ties in with the established footpath routes to the school,surgery and sports field. Safety is in fact severly comprimised by the proposed crossroads on Sandy Lane. Air quality is not enhanced by siting a new road on the edge of residential areas or by the stop/start nature of vehicules on the proposed junction adjacent to houses on the Woodstock road. Again for the applicant to continue restating that the new proposel encroaches less on the open countryside and relates better to the settlement setting of Yarnton does not make it true. This statement is false and does not stand up to examination. Whilst the application utilises the line of the existing driveway to the Science Park this is not relevant as a planning issue and is an internal matter that the applicant was well aware of when approval for the original route was granted in 2005.As I have already said the closure of this drive meets all of the concerns and criteria about traffic management on Sandy Lane. The 12 stated benefits on Page 13 of the planning statement are a mere re-hash of the weak arguements made by the applicant in respect ofthis case. I would ask that you reject this application in full. If the Science Park wishes to continue with expansion the original route should be actioned as already approved. The University of Oxford has put off the building of the approved road for nearly 3 years and now seems to be suggesting that they need permission for this new route as a matter of urgency! John Burford PublicAccess for Planning. (c) CAPS Solutions Ltd.