planning application at Dragon Lane / Fyfield Road junction
Geraint Jones
draw the attention of Cyclox and of users of NCN51/OCR5 Dragon Lane
to planning application 24/01059/FUL which (for a third time I think)
seeks to open a car access from the front of 12 Fyfield Road into
the bit of Norham Road between Fyfield Road, Dragon Lane, School Lane
and Benson Place, adjacent to the parking bay on the south side.
I hope that Cyclox is an automatic consultee on such applications,
but don't trust that it is. Comments are open on the City Council
planning site until 8th June, a week on Saturday.
Users of the Dragon Lane cycle route may like me feel that they want
to comment on the effect this might have on cycle traffic here. The
planning application makes claims such as that providing a parking
space at the front of this house will remove parking from the road,
even though the parking bays remain and are heavily used. Also that
access to the front of the house through this one gate will not involve
reversing in the middle of the cycle route either to enter or leave.
The road safety audit supporting the application appears to have
involved two brief site visits one in mid-morning in February and one
in early afternoon (after all the schools had broken up for the summer)
neither of which saw any cycle movements.
You may be happy with this, in which case I apologise for disturbing you.
I am concerned that the only comments from the public are brief and
lightly reasoned and in support of the application, and from a range
of addresses around North Oxford, and that none of them seem to be
from cyclists.
Graham Smith
 | |
On 29 May 2024, at 15:19, Geraint Jones <gj.c...@rhydychen.org.uk> wrote:
Forgive me for canvassing about a planning application; I'd like to
--
--
Please 'LIKE' our Facebook Fan Page - it really helps.
https://www.facebook.com/Cycloxfanpage
not a member yet? Do join online at http://www.cyclox.org/join-us/
.............................
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Cyclox-Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cyclox...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cyclox-forum?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cyclox-Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cyclox-forum...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cyclox-forum/202405291419.44TEJdHj262409%40linux.cs.ox.ac.uk.
Graham Smith
I am concerned about pedestrian amenity and, at a broader level, about reducing an added danger for people cycling.
_______
Inappropriate use of Safety Audit:
The RSA carried out uses the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) GG119.
I object to this.
This Manual is not applicable to roads other than Motorways and Trunk Roads.
The appropriate guidance would use Manual for Streets for all residential roads, which adds a qualitative dimension to the Audit process. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e0035ed915d74e6223743/pdfmanforstreets.pdf
____
Dropped kerb:
The application docs state that "The existing 3m wide dropped kerb on Benson Road would be used to provide access". I wish to head-off any temptation to use a sloping footway design for any potentially newly formed Vehicle Crossover. Were this the intention of the applicant I object (in advance).
The proposal is to reuse the existing kerbs. The point - for people walking - is that a continuous smooth and flat surface is required.
I suggest that any ramp from carriageway to road would best be achieved by using steeper ramp sections such as the Charcon ‘Dutch kerb’ which maximises the amount of flat footway.
Manual for Streets figure 6.12 (previously given link) explains the concept but since 2007 the supply situation has changed and the steeper kerb is now available in UK.
The application uses this concept, of a steeper slope, it is proposed for ramping from the footway to driveway-level, using cobbles.
_______
Parking Provision on-street:
It is unclear whether the applicant suggests the possibility of reducing the length of adjacent parking provision on-street with the access to on-site parking.
I would support removal of at least one car-parking length adjacent to the dropped kerb. This is for reasons of visibility for people cycling on the National Cycle Route: NCN51/OCR5 Dragon Lane, off Norham Road between Fyfield Road, Dragon Lane, School Lane and Benson Place, adjacent to the parking bay on the south side.
The planning application makes claims such as : providing a parking space at the front of this house will remove parking from the road, even though the parking bays remain and are heavily used. Also that access to the front of the house through this one gate will not involve reversing in the middle of the cycle route either to enter or leave. This is an important point and is supported were it made into a condition.
The (DMRB) GG119 road safety audit used in the application appears to have involved two brief site visits one in mid-morning in February and one in early afternoon (after all the schools had broken up for the summer) neither of which saw any cycle movements. This makes for an inadequate audit of users - a significant proportion of whom are young people.