Access arrangements

What is being proposed?

Access to the site is the only area of the outline application that is not “reserved”. In other words it is a firm proposal. There are three access points, two of which are for vehicles and one for pedestrians and cyclists.

• The primary vehicular access is via a new junction off Drove Road
• There is secondary vehicular access through Eastman’s Field
• A new pedestrian and cycle path runs from the North of the site down to meet the residential part of Cart Lane

Comments:

Primary access

The proposal states that the primary access to the Site for all modes (pedestrians, cycles and vehicles) is proposed via Drove Road via a priority junction. The access road is 5.5m wide with 2m footways on either side. It adds that a secondary access to the Site for all modes (pedestrians, cycles and vehicles) is proposed via Eastman’s Field.

It is worth noting that the footways either side of the main access are 2m wide. This needs to be compared to the other footways/pavements in Chilbolton which are:

• Village Street - painted footway 1m wide
• Station Road - footways 1.5m wide.

The new footways proposed leading into the development will be 2m wide. The existing footways in the village, where they exist, are much narrower.

Once residents leave the proposed development they will no longer have the safety of wide footways. They will be on narrow, bendy roads.

The painted footways are only 1m wide and pedestrians very often have to squeeze into hedges to allow vehicles to pass.

New residents will be leaving an environment which is designed to be safe for all road users to one that is definitely not.

Peter Hatter puts it succinctly in his response:

Drove Road, the primary access route for this proposed development, is exceptionally narrow and dangerous and has No sidewalks or pavements or street light:

• It is currently too narrow for safe passage of pedestrians and cars simultaneously and critically lacks any footpaths.
• The introduction of 75 to 130 private vehicles daily, combined with the extreme danger posed by construction traffic (HGVs, vans, machinery), presents an unacceptable and extreme danger to pedestrians, cyclists, and particularly children.

He also adds “The construction phase alone would cause unacceptable levels of disruption to virtually every resident of Chilbolton for a prolonged period”

Secondary Access through Eastman’s Field

Why is a secondary access going through Eastman’s Field? This is a quiet series of cul-de-sacs with a narrow entry and exit.

Given that the main entrance has been so carefully planned and designed, why is there a need for a secondary access at all?

Why should long-standing residents of a quiet, narrow no-through road suddenly have traffic passing back and forth? It is totally inappropriate.

Roma Nicholl lives in Eastman's Field and in her response she describes how unsuitable it is an access to the proposed development:

I am also very unhappy that Eastman’s Field is being treated by the developer as a funnel onto this huge estate. The property owner has already made it known he wishes to expand this development into additional fields as part of their master plan, so the total number of dwellings could ultimately double. I do not think it is safe or fair to allow traffic through what is currently a residential cul de sac. Eastman’s Field is a social housing estate and is for families with children , and already handles the various spikes in traffic brought about by events in the village hall. Oftentimes parking spills over from the village hall into our street .

Turning into and out of Eastman’s Field is already extremely hazardous, not only due to the width of the street and volume of village hall users driving in and out at various times, but also from road users coming down the hill on Drove Road who can be barely visible due to road width, speed of traffic and on street parking.

Finally, mine and others driveways, in Eastman’s Field leave us no option other than to reverse into our narrow congested street and back out into the road. I am required to reverse 30 or so yards in order to turn. I am concerned about proposals to make a through road here, and the very near proximity to my driveway, and would like TVBC to examine this closely.

Considering the narrow width of Eastman’s Field and these other aggravating factors I believe that TVBC should insist that this large and dense proposed estate, if given permission for, should have its own sole entry/exit built to manage the stream of traffic it has created and not impose this on a small existing cul de sac, and totally altering the character of our street.

Cycle Path

There is a cycle and pedestrian path proposed to join the development to the village centre.

The proposed route of this is through fields, running parallel to an existing footpath, and joining onto Cart Lane.

This new pathway will be a steep journey downhill to the village and steep uphill journey from the village. The users will need to be fit and strong to manage it. Given that some of the proposed homes are for older people how suitable is this as a means of access to the village?

Will mobility scooters cope with this as a safe access?

The Cycle Path itself might be designed with a smooth surface but once the users emerge onto Cart Lane it will be a very different surface that greets them. Namely a bumpy track often full of potholes and puddles. This track is maintained by volunteer residents.

Questions need to be asked as to the purpose of this Cycle path and whether it is needed.

• Why is this new route necessary when a pathway already exists?
• Is it merely there as a “place mark” for a future road in and out of the proposed development?

The bottom end of Cart Lane is a narrow track within the Conservation area and is bordered by residential buildings. Two of these buildings are grade listed. It would be entirely unsuitable as an access point to any development on the land to the north-east of Drove Road.