From: Public Access DC Comments Sent: 15 April 2008 15:54 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 14:49 To: Public Access DC Comments Subject: PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (08/00899/F) PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (08/00899/F) "Lesley 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 14:49:04 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: Lesley Braun Address: 4 Broad Field Road Yarnton Postcode: OX5 1UL Comments -------- Submission Type: Customer objects to the Planning Application. Comments: Ref : Oxford University Planning Application for Alteration and Extension of Access Road to Begbroke Science Park. I would like to register my strong objection to the above planning request. Having reviewed the associated planning documents is seems to me that the benefits stated can be split into 4 categories. Cosmetic i.e.. maintain quality of approach, follow existing route, Unsubstantiated i.e. linkage for non-work traffic, improve pedestrian connectivity, provide alternative route to Oxford Actual Benefits i.e. improved highway safety, Incorrect claims i.e. a more urban situation, create a more direct link, can be delivered at the earliest opportunity Cosmetic - these are vague and serve only to try and make this appear a better option over the existing approved option (3). From a residents perspective these are not benefits and only serve to give Oxford University the appearance of a vain entity only interested in their own self importance with no concern for the community or environment. Being a full time worker, traveling to an office everyday the outside view whilst driving up to it is not something I think about - as it is only once maybe twice a day I see it and only for a matter of seconds to use this as a benefit when the overall impact on the environment is negative. Unsubstantiated - these are related to benefits to the community. Who in the community has agreed these? We have not been consulted. This is Oxford University being arrogant making assumptions on our behalf. I disagree with these benefits/ Actual benefits - these apply equally to option 1 and 3 providing similar proposals are on the table i.e. traffic light controlled junction allowing access from both carriageways and a pedestrian crossing. If the proposals are different then option 3 should be amended to include the above, landscaping etc. Incorrect claims - The area in question is just as rural as that between Begbroke and Yarnton. Look at an ordinance survey map. Providing increased access to the countryside is also stated. This is the contradictory to the previous statement - if option 1 is in a 'less rural' position how can it provide access to the countryside. Also option 3 would provide better access as it can link in to the local footpath network in that area. What is more direct than a straight line? Option 3 is less distance therefore this has a reduced impact on the environment. Option 1 is certainly not direct. As option 3 is approved the work for this could have already started and as this is a lesser distance would take less effort to complete. There is nothing in this proposal that makes option 1 better than option 3 if fact option 1 has several key disadvantages over option 3: - Increased air pollution for local residents Increased noise for local residents Disruption of current rural view Option 3 has the same benefits as option 1 and none of the above disadvantages. In addition I see no key disadvantages to option 3. PublicAccess for Planning. (c) CAPS Solutions Ltd.