At Grade Roundabout for A40 Witney Bypass

[Jeni]

It isn't 20 seconds but (assuming 10,000 AADT) 20 seconds*10,000=200,000 seconds or 56 hours. That's the equivalent of seven working days down the drain every day, all because the developers wouldn't build a measly 100m link road for their 1,000 new homes and business park.

Wow, with numbers that high we should never build a roundabout again.

(sarcasm)

[jackal]

Not on grade separated roads when a GSJ could be built at a broadly similar price.

[Bryn666]

Not on grade separated roads when a GSJ could be built at a broadly similar price.

It wasn't the price of the GSJ they claimed poverty about, it was the loss of develop-able land brought about by providing a GSJ which would tip the scheme into not being viable. Given that the planning framework favours houses over roads, that therefore means that a roundabout is instead approved because the alternative is no houses.

It's all nonsense but that's where we are. The other fact that none of these homes will be remotely affordable thus doing nothing to provide the supply where it is really needed (e.g. in towns rather than off A-roads where car dependency will be locked in from day one) suggests that the kind of home owner moving in would oppose a GSJ anyway as "they don't want a motorway next to their house" (apart from when commuting, but that is more they don't want others using the road).

[jackal]

Not on grade separated roads when a GSJ could be built at a broadly similar price.

It wasn't the price of the GSJ they claimed poverty about, it was the loss of develop-able land brought about by providing a GSJ which would tip the scheme into not being viable. Given that the planning framework favours houses over roads, that therefore means that a roundabout is instead approved because the alternative is no houses.

The developers' masterplan doesn't actually have anything to the south of the A40:

http://www.bartonwillmore.co.uk/Knowled ... ble-neighb

Could still be that that was essentially their argument, but "it's not economical to build this huge development unless we retain a tiny pocket of land for possible future development on the other side of the A40" is tenuous at best.

[Bryn666]

Not on grade separated roads when a GSJ could be built at a broadly similar price.

It wasn't the price of the GSJ they claimed poverty about, it was the loss of develop-able land brought about by providing a GSJ which would tip the scheme into not being viable. Given that the planning framework favours houses over roads, that therefore means that a roundabout is instead approved because the alternative is no houses.

The developers' masterplan doesn't actually have anything to the south of the A40:

http://www.bartonwillmore.co.uk/Knowled ... ble-neighb

Could still be that that was essentially their argument, but "it's not economical to build this huge development unless we retain a tiny pocket of land for possible future development on the other side of the A40" is tenuous at best.

Having to go through the rigmarole of purchasing the land, if it was outside their red line boundary, would be sufficient.

[SteveA30]

Is it known when developers became part of the road building process. Funding used to be entirely within LA's or Government AFAIK. Councils had Road Construction Units in the late 60's/70's, which worked with the DoT. It seems to have been in the 90's that things changed. Over to the insiders......

[RichardA35]

Is it known when developers became part of the road building process. Funding used to be entirely within LA's or Government AFAIK. Councils had Road Construction Units in the late 60's/70's, which worked with the DoT. It seems to have been in the 90's that things changed. Over to the insiders......

This is a matter for the west Oxfordshire local plan since this road was detrunked. There would only be a county or local policy to be complied with. Development is one of the key drivers and if ready made dual carriageway links already exist then why not use them? It has been determined that it is not a strategic road merely a county road and there are targets for housebuilding etc.

[trickstat]

Is it known when developers became part of the road building process. Funding used to be entirely within LA's or Government AFAIK. Councils had Road Construction Units in the late 60's/70's, which worked with the DoT. It seems to have been in the 90's that things changed. Over to the insiders......

This is a matter for the west Oxfordshire local plan since this road was detrunked. There would only be a county or local policy to be complied with. Development is one of the key drivers and if ready made dual carriageway links already exist then why not use them? It has been determined that it is not a strategic road merely a county road and there are targets for housebuilding etc.

There's the added potential complication that planning is the responsibility of West Oxfordshire District Council and highways Oxfordshire County Council.

[RichardA35]

Is it known when developers became part of the road building process. Funding used to be entirely within LA's or Government AFAIK. Councils had Road Construction Units in the late 60's/70's, which worked with the DoT. It seems to have been in the 90's that things changed. Over to the insiders......

The road construction unit staff were disbanded (probably about the end of the 1970's without looking it up) and joined either consultants or county councils. I remember Warwickshire County staff on projects in the mid 80's being ex RCU and some of these larger counties had the trunk road design agency and also the maintenance agency contracts for the DoT.
However about the mid 90's the counties were getting fat on this work, the Highways agency was formed and the trunk road agencies were privatised to consultants. At Leatherhead for instance the works staff joined Area 3 (Balfour Beatty I think) and the engineering staff joined the consultant which may have been Atkins or Mouchel (I forget which). I know of some staff who are still in the same area have been TUPE'd several times from their original county council employer.
The county council engineering services followed - for instance Essex and Oxfordshire were both taken over by WS Atkins and all that are left in councils are one or two supervisory staff and the occasional one who knows how to call up a consultant which is where all the work is done and the money made.

[Phil]

The whole scheme should’ve been refused then. The only reason it’s remotely acceptable is that provides a link to the A4095 that was non-existent before.

But it should’ve been done properly.

This is a condition that exists as a result of the Councils being led by developers. It really should be the other way round given that the developers are not the planning authority. But all they have to say is "Fine, we will build in another county" and the Council bends to their every wish. It really does amaze me that my local council actually issued stop notices to the building consortium on Barry Waterfront over the fact they had made no move towards constructing any of the amenities promised in the planning document.

Councillors are not 'led by developers' as you put it - they are actually HELD HOSTAGE by developers thanks to the inhabitants of Westminster - and in particular a previous incumbent called George Osbourne.

Westminster changed and rigged the planning rules in favour of their housebuilding mates which mean councils have a legal obligation to make XX amount of land available for housing development every year and have a 5 year housing plan with targets for the construction of new houses. If the council does not do this then the planning rules state that when the refusal is taken to appeal (as developers will automatically do when refused or when councils interfere too much causing too much of a dent in expected profits by demanding things like, decent road layouts), then the planning inspector is under a LEGAL OBLIGATION to ALLOW the developer to go ahead.

Effectively the only way developers can be held at bay is if the land in question is designated as "Green Belt", is in a National Park, in an area officially designated as "An area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or is a "Site of Special Scientific Interest"

Hence most authorities will be on the hunt for big bits of land they can nominate as suitable for housing to meet their quotas. they hope that by doing this they may have slightly more ability to influence things - which usually means the provision of land for schools or doctors surgeries than roads.

This is why we have seen a very rubbish roundabout plonked on the A264 between Crawly and Horsham with absolutely terrible geometry (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0971991 ... a=!3m1!1e3), why hundreds of homes are being built on fields next to Junction 11 of the M23 (https://www.mywoodgate.co.uk/development) and why a large chunk of land has been cleared for housing north of the A264 as it goes round the north of Horsham (https://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/pe ... ham-646163). In all such cases the development of this land helps prevent the over expansion of villages and also sidesetps the issue of lots of Sussex being designated as AONB.

My local authority (Mid Sussex District Council) was given a right mauling by the planning inspector over their repeated refusal of planning permission for a small development in East Grinstead. The full document can be found at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 142487.pdf - but the following gives insight to the fate awaiting ANY authority which stands up to developers.


The supply and delivery of housing in Mid Sussex212.The MSDLP had a plan period which ran to 2006. The housing allocations contained within the plan were based on the former Structure Plan of 1993. At the time of the Inquiry the start of the examination of the eLP was imminent but, as noted above, at this stage only limited weight can be attached to the eLP. The former South East Plan (now largely revoked) set a housing requirement for Mid Sussex of 855 dwellings per annum (dpa). More recently, the eLP has proposed a requirement of 800dpa. On the basis of these requirements, the appellant calculates that there has been an undersupply of over 3,000 dwellings over the last 10 years.

Allowing for the shortfall and a 20% buffer the appellant calculates that the requirement over the next 5 years should be at least 1,748dpa. [45, 56, 65] 213.The Council did not dispute that it is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites, as required by paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). It did not offer any detailed evidence on housing land supply matters. The appellant’s written evidence sought to challenge the eLP requirement of 800dpa. However, those arguments were not pressed in oral evidence or in submissions. No doubt they will be considered further in the context of the eLP examination. [65, 131]214.

For the purposes of this appeal, I attach significant weight to a recent Secretary of State decision relating to Birchen Lane, Haywards Heath. In that case the Inspector reported, and the Secretary of State agreed, that the housing land supply in Mid Sussex is in the range 1.91 to 2.36 years. The Secretary of State also agreed with the Inspector’s characterisation of this position as ‘woeful’.

At the Inquiry the Council accepted that there has been no material change in circumstances since August 2016 when that decision was made. I therefore conclude that the housing land supply position now is unlikely to be materially different. [32, 56, 66, 144] 215.There is a pressing need for affordable housing in the district. The Council has identified a need for 474dpa, compared with average delivery over the last 12 years of 128dpa. There are currently 1,420 households on the housing register. The appeal scheme would deliver up to 60 affordable dwellings, with a mix of Report APP/D3830/W/16/3142487Page 47 types and tenures.

This would comply with MSDLP policy H4 and make a welcome contribution to meeting affordable housing needs in the district. [67] 216.There is no evidence that the site is subject to physical or infrastructure constraints which might prevent it from making a meaningful contribution to housing delivery within the next 5 years. Given the challenging housing land supply position, that seems to me to be an important factor weighing in favour of the appeal. The delivery of housing, including affordable housing, would bring significant social benefits. There would also be economic benefits arising from direct investment and employment during the construction phase and additional expenditure in the local economy generated by the new residents.

[DB617]

What an utterly horrendous situation. There is something completely perverse about a publicly-funded authority having no power over their own land and highways because of Government legislation that hands power over the elected Council and their Officers to private companies whose only interest is a quick profit. I understand we have a housing deficit, and that needed to be urgently addressed, but developers have been allowed by Osborne and his ilk to spend the minimum possible and do everything cheap and nasty. We will feel the effects of their irresponsibility for the next fifty or more years.

I would also call it distinctly un-(small c) conservative to mandate the lazy and reckless misuse of potentially important areas of publicly owned land and, crucially to SABRE, arterial local highways. Even just on the ~4 miles of an over capacity commuter highway, the A4050, in my locale there have been two shoddy T-junctions added to give access to small developments, here and here.

Both are absolutely dreadful bits of roadbuilding. In the first link, there has always been a perfectly good pedestrian access at the south end of Pencoedtre Lane which was blocked up to prevent access from the old (private access) junction into Cadoxton. There was absolutely no need to build this massive overengineered junction onto the main road directly - any sensible highways engineer would have stopped up the access to the A4050 and opened the other end - but obviously it was used as a selling point by the developer.

Similar situation at the second link regarding the selling point, as it is only a few miles from the M4 and joined directly onto the main road, but slapping a T junction, ghost island or no ghost island, between the two roundabouts was utterly irresponsible and leads to very unsafe situations in the morning and evening peaks with traffic emerging and entering. There was an opportunity to connect onto Old Port Road in Wenvoe, avoiding slowing down the main route between the M4 and Barry. I have raged against these junctions since they were built, being clear examples of developers with absolutely no regard for the roads they are joining onto.

[Patrick Harper]

They may as well have not built a new junction at all, that would have allowed for a larger development area than exists now. The Thorney Leys road is a decent link to the A415 junction, access from the west would be through Minster Lovell. Why were these deemed inadequate?

[DB617]

They may as well have not built a new junction at all, that would have allowed for a larger development area than exists now. The Thorney Leys road is a decent link to the A415 junction, access from the west would be through Minster Lovell. Why were these deemed inadequate?

Twofold:

1. Developers can market the entire development as "direct access off the A40"
2. Using existing roads usually leads to protests from NIMBYs who don't realise that the alternative is for the "main road" to receive a new modern style junction, which is always a reduction in the standard of the road.

You can't think like a highways engineer or a town planner in cases like these. The developer will do whatever they please, in the name of absolute maximum moneymaking, with little to no involvement from transport specialists. One has to wonder whether institutional waste plagues their works, because they seem to constantly harp on about how they have tight margins on their housing sales, but have some of the highest financial turnovers of any businesses in the UK.

[marconaf]

Just to add 2p...

Almost came a cropper here this evening.

Was doing 70 on the D2 heading West in the outside line having just overtaken someone and was planning to come off shortly afterwards for my destination (hence why was at or below the speed limit!) and being an occasional user but by no means regular was greatly surprised to see “new roundabout” signs, so in some confusion lifted off, then braked to see this horribly laid out thing in front of me.

The signs dont give you much warning at 70 btw. For people doing closer to 80 it could be a real challenge to stop .

As I went on to it the car I’d overtaken had caught up again and so had no space on the left of me, and the manoeuvre round it was awful, like driving outwards then having to slew back online.

Horrible experience - how this was considered safe is beyond me. You go from a good fast DC to having to drop to 20odd to negotiate the roundabout which isnt even equally curved (its skew somehow) so there is no natural driving line or feeling.

Needs ripping up and something larger putting in there, or GSJ as per discussion.

Whilst the time delay is minor, slowing 70-20 or stop, then accelerating - for every single car - has to be more polluting than a GSJ? That seems to be missed by the anti free-flowers. Its also why I use the backroads and never, ever, drive through Milton Keynes.

[hoagy_ytfc]

The signs dont give you much warning at 70 btw. For people doing closer to 80 it could be a real challenge to stop .

Well, it _is_ a 50 limit for a considerable distance either side of it.

[marconaf]

The signs dont give you much warning at 70 btw. For people doing closer to 80 it could be a real challenge to stop .

Well, it _is_ a 50 limit for a considerable distance either side of it.

Don’t recall seeing any signs for that!

[SteveA30]

And it is right next to a bridge as well. Alresford bypass is next in line for this sort of nonsense.

[hoagy_ytfc]

Don’t recall seeing any signs for that!

In contrast, it's still 70 right up to the roundabout at the western end of the dual-carriageway section.

[Isleworth1961]

The signs dont give you much warning at 70 btw. For people doing closer to 80 it could be a real challenge to stop .

There are markings across the carriageway for a long distance before the roundabout alerting drivers to slow down as there's a hazard coming up.

[marconaf]

The signs dont give you much warning at 70 btw. For people doing closer to 80 it could be a real challenge to stop .

There are markings across the carriageway for a long distance before the roundabout alerting drivers to slow down as there's a hazard coming up.

And how good are they at night in the rain, as was the case...

Again, it came up as a surprise, and I was already slowed and watching for my exit so was arguably paying more attention than just cruising along the DC.