From: Public Access DC Comments Sent: 15 April 2008 12:10 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: 15 April 2008 12:19 To: Public Access DC Comments Subject: PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (08/00899/F) PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (08/00899/F) "David Braun" 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 15/04/2008 12:19:20 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: David Braun Address: 4 Broad Field Road Yarnton Postcode: OX5 1UL Comments -------- Submission Type: Customer objects to the Planning Application. Comments: Because of limits imposed by this website I have submitted my comments in two halves. Part one: Having recently received notification from yourselves with the regards to the revised planning application from Oxford University for Access Road Extension and Alterations I would like to register my objection to this proposal. Having read through the additional documentation available on the Cherwell website I have the following comments to make with regards to this proposal. In general I do not see any benefits to option 1 over option 3. With references to the document entitled - New Access for Begbroke Science Park Design and Access Statement: - Section 1.6 Benefits Moving from open countryside to a more built up area - I cannot agree with statement. Whilst the route of Option 3 may look from the A44 to be more rural if you review the routes on an ordinance survey map you will see there is really no difference. In my view option 3 by being close to the allotments has in fact less impact - especially if it is properly landscaped. Creating a link to the south in which the majority of the traffic travels - has a survey been undertaken proving this? If so why is it not available with the other planning documents? The current level of traffic to the site is significantly less than is planned in the future. How can this be stated when the majority of traffic is not in existence yet. Who is to say this will be the case. The opposite may end up being true. Follow and maintain the line of the existing access - this is a cosmetic benefit which is far out weighed by the disadvantages of option 1, namely the impact on the local residents due to increased air pollution and noise. An aesthetic benefit such as this is should not be a consideration. Improved highway safety - whilst his may be true in turn this may cause more congestion on the A44 going south in peak hours. Congestion is already an issue at times with traffic being stacked back in both lanes passed the Sandy Lane roundabout. Siting a traffic light controlled Junction halfway down may increase this. However locating it the other side may improve this by filtering the traffic coming down. Maintenance of the quality of the approach - again this is cosmetic and can only be stated if this is a site to be visited by a significant number of visiting dignitaries (who can use the existing access anyway). As someone who travels to work everyday, driving up to the site and how it looks does not have any impact on my working environment from a day to day perspective. So again are the local residents to suffer just so the employees can look at an old building for less than a minute as they drive into work. After a while these sort of niceties become unnoticeable by regular employees. The impact of the increased noise and air quality will be noticeable by the residents for ever. Making more logical use of the existing access - to enable this to be continued to be used with option 1 it has to be widened - this has a detrimental visual effect. Surely sticking with the existing agreed access route - option 3 allows the more picturesque access to be kept for visitors. It also reduces the amount of work to be done - no widening allowing more funding for landscaping option 3 to blend with the environment. Improved linkage for non-vehicle travel to work - what proof is there for this? Has a survey been undertaken with the locals - if so we have not been included. All this will do is increase the noise for the locals - if used Continued in part two: PublicAccess for Planning. (c) CAPS Solutions Ltd.