Friday 1 April 2011

Why wasn't this diagram discussed at the Planning Meeting yesterday ?

It shows the projected path of a truck entering Union Lane around a blind corner.

The shaded black shaded area represents a pedestrian pavement which is driven over.

The movement of pedestrians along Union Lane wasn't even discussed at the planning meeting.

Councillors were not even aware of the Persimmon's 30 page Transport Statement from which this diagram is taken.

In this plan above, pedestrians have to cross the road at the most dangerous place in the road: the location of a blind corner.

This will become the most dangerous intersection in Cumbria.

Time was not given to raise this issue because Cumbria County Highways chose to ignore it saying that there weren't any problems with the proposed plans.

Their total statement to the planning committee reads:

"I can confirm that the proposal is broadly acceptable to Cumbria Highways. The development will fall under advance payments code procedure operated by Cumbria County Council, and roadworks must be constructed to an adoptable standard.

"I accept the recommedations of the safety audit and developers notes, provided these are followed.

"Conditions regarding construction details of roads and footpaths and the provision of parking for vehicles associated with the construction works are recommended."

How can there not be problems when 60 additional cars in the new development start to use this lane.

Those of us that live here never/rarely turn round this corner in this way. We approach the lane from the north where visibility is good.

Will the new residents on the development all be this careful?

Safety issues were not discussed at the meeting because of the above statement by CCC. The issues were confined to the need for housing , especially affordable housing, and the preservation of the old wall that is within the conservation area.

Because of the weak statement from CCC , we believe that the decision of the planning committee is unsafe and will be challenging it if at all possible.

7 comments:

'arry J said...

Yawn. More fuss about sod all! Might I suggest that any vehicles approaching from the Gill go past the junction, stop and then reverse into the Lane. I think you will find that reversing is included in driving tests and most drivers, especially commercial ones, are quite efficient at it.

Geoff Dellow said...

Are you suggesting that delivery vehicles all reverse the one hundred and fifty yards to each of the twenty five new houses togther with the existing twelve houses?

Or are you perhaps making adverse comments about something you don't know anything about ?

Just for devilment.

'arry J said...

I've just watched the binmen reverse their vehicle up a back street, no problem at all. No cars scraped, no people crushed and all the cats survived unscathed. So, what is the problem?

I would suggest that as people tend to reverse slowly then the manoeuvre will likely be safer than if forward propulsion is engaged.

Geoff Dellow said...

True. Delivery trucks do this very efficiently here most days, however they do this because they have no alternative: there's nowhere to turn round.

In the new development with it's additional roads and houses they will be able to.

Are you arguing that it's just as safe to drive backwards as forwards.

Or are you just arguing?

Anonymous said...

Possibly the most stupid comment ever on this blog - 'arry J .Two weeks ago a lady was killed in Windermere by a SLDC wagon reversing. Of course reversing is more hazardous than forward driving ,especially in a large vehicle. REVERSE 200 YARDS TO THE NEW BUILDING SITE ? LOL as the kids say !

Geoff Dellow said...

Thanks for a sane comment at last.

I publish these comments from Morons that sit at their computers using silly names and being negative so that sane people can see what kind of people are in our midst.

Sadly the sane people that read this blog, and I suspect there are many, decline to pass comment.

I'm convinced that if they did and had the courage to identify themselves the standard of comment here would improve dramatically so that it became a forum for action and good discussion.

Another silly bugger whose comment I chose not to publish stated that I should get off my backside and do something rather than faffing about with bloody flags . .

Anonymous said...

Remember the development of the Lund estate by the same company.
A roundabout was to be fitted on the A590 on highways dept instructions then it was found after the development had started it was unsuitable.
Ignore "Backward arry" every village has one.
Challenge it NOW.
Send details to Colin H .