Photo-tour to supplement the Gladman transport report

Speculative developer Gladman recently produced a transport study of Bloxham aimed at justifying their proposal to build another 75 houses on the Barford Road.
We thought we could usefully supplement their findings with a few photos. You can click on them for an enlargement.

If you are pushed for time you can just click through the photos (by clicking on the right of them) BUT do read the captions.

Gladmans describe the Barford Road as wide and of good alignment. I’m not sure exactly what good alignment means but I do know they seem to have missed the fact that within 10m of the proposed site entrance is a bend-road narrows sign warning of a bend where traffic approaching Bloxham from a de-restricted zone (150m) enters the village often at unacceptably high speeds.
	In the opposite direction (towards Bloxham) there is also effectively a blind bend some 150m before the proposed entrance to the site from which around 150 vehicles will need to exit. The Rural Neighbourhood Police Team have mounted temporary speed indicator warnings near here on a number of occasions because of poor speed limit compliance.
Describing the Barford Road as wide is something of a generalisation. Given that Gladman talks about an easy commute to jobs in Deddington and Oxford it needs to consider the width rather more than a few hundred metres or so from the development. Yes – you can follow the Barford Road to Deddington and Oxford but not without negotiating a single-track section through much of Barford St Michael which is tricky even out of peak times and the road leading to this little bridge near Barford is frequently flooded by those increasingly frequent heavy rainfalls – but even when dry only the brave would contemplate passing oncoming traffic along this stretch.
	Whether a road is wide enough also rather depends upon what sort of traffic is using it. So – it’s surprising Gladman didn’t mention the huge lorries from the Smiths scrapyard which regularly negotiate the mini-roundabout and the Milton Road junction or the high numbers of huge farm vehicles that at certain times of year make the Barford Road seem anything but wide.
When commenting upon accidents Gladman seemed only able to find out about 2 recent accidents within a few hundred yards of the site. They might have wondered why expensive chevron signs have been erected at the Barford Road – Milton Road junction. Or maybe they could have enquired why one resident near this junction has built a garden wall of military quality steel reinforced concrete: (Hint – it wasn’t for fun!)
	And why just quote accidents within a few hundred yards of the site whilst also emphasizing the ease of commuting from Bloxham? Traffic leaving the new development is going to turn right onto the Barford Road and then the A361 or left onto the Barford Road towards Deddington and Oxford. They could have found out from Oxfordshire County Council, as I did, that there have been 25 recent reported accidents along the Barford Road and 89 reported accidents on the local stretch of the A361. And remember – there is no obligation to report accidents that don’t entail personal injury and so even these numbers will inevitably be a major underestimate of the real number of accidents.
Gladmans carried out a traffic survey at the end of January and found that even at peak times the mini-roundabout on the Barford Rd was only at 98% of its capacity. They also conclude adding another 75 houses would have no noticeable effect. This does not match the experience of residents commuting through the village. It does not account for the heavy use of farm vehicles at certain times of year. Increased traffic on the Milton Rd into Bloxham contributed to rejection of the development of 65 homes in Addebury and so the idea a larger number of new homes within Bloxham will make no difference to traffic flow just doesn’t compute!
	And – doesn’t the word planning imply concern for the future? Whilst the current recession has caused a dip in traffic the Department for Transport predict major increases in the coming years as shown in Fig 5.1. on page 51 of this document. Given the predicted increase to existing congestion – and taking account that there is no scope for road widening – adding yet another 75 homes would show a cavalier disregard for reality.
Oddly Gladman have little to say about traffic in what they call the ‘town’ centre – which is strange because nearly everyone else does! You could often be forgiven for wondering if you are in a village or on the M25! For much of the day the only way traffic gets to flow past Bloxham shops at all is by drivers comandeering the wrong side of the road for a lengthy stretch. Would you like your primary age children to walk to school through this?
	The Gladman report notes “Footpaths along one or both sides of most roads means walking is a practical as well as theoretical choice.” They have obviously not attempted walking to the school or village centre from the Barford Rd with a dog, children or a wheelchair – and that’s even if no-one is coming in the opposite direction! There are two extremely narrow and unavoidable stretches of pavement – one over a protected old bridge near the dangerous Milton Rd junction and another on the A361 near the site of a fatal accident in 2007 close to Bloxham Museum.
The photo above is on a weekend evening but at peak times, for anyone with 2 or more children, this route is exceedingly ‘challenging’ – with an endless flow of heavy goods vehicles heading towards Chipping Norton and the M5 or to the local scrapyard. And that’s before the increased pedestrian flow that will result from the currently half full Woodlands Gardens development. CDC officers and councillors approving another large development at this end of the village should carefully consider their duty of care. Certainly walking with children from this end of the village is unlikely to be an option of first resort!
According to the Gladman report a range of facilities including retail, leisure and work are within cycling distance. This has to mean Banbury. This is a strenuous but achievable cycle ride however the A361 is a major connection between the M40 and M5 and with 89 reported accidents in recent years cycling is considered high risk by most residents – even in good weather! Few cyclists find the prospect of sharing this relatively narrow road with massive lorries an attractive proposition. This is why the Parish Council have on several occasions tried, without success, to secure funding for a proper Bloxham to Banbury cycle path.
	It’s also hard to imagine there won’t be significant vehicle impacts on the A361 as a result of of the recently approved 115,197sqm industrial and distribution centre in Banbury. Traffic evaluations seem only to consider roads in the immediate vicinity of Overthorpe and the M40. Oxfordshire Highways confirm that there are no major improvements scheduled for the A361 this side of 2030. So – sustainable cycle routes to work, retail and leisure? Well – yes there is a road!
	Gladmans also asserts he nearest major centres are accessible by bus. Using public transport to access work in Oxford is a non-starter. Banbury is served by a bus route – though not currently through the weekend and the latest weekday bus back to Bloxham would necessitate a job where you could get to the bus by six o’clock. This will be OK for some but preclude many jobs within the retail and services sectors where later shifts or more flexible hours are often expected.

I trust this will provide Gladman with useful information that they seemed to have missed in their report.

The recently rejected Adderbury proposal argued, ‘This represents development beyond the built up limits of Adderbury, a rural settlement where development is less sustainable than the urban areas, and where it will cause harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. Notwithstanding the Council’s short term inability to demonstrate that it has the 5 year supply of housing land required by PPS3 Housing, the development of this site cannot be justified on the basis of a temporary land supply deficiency alone as it will result in an unplanned development potentially undermining the Council’s emerging Core Strategy. ‘

If the Bloxham development is accepted – where transport issues create a far less sustainable outcome than Adderbury – then we shall expect to know precisely what criteria were applied with justifiable and proportionate reason to lead to that different outcome.