twowheelsgood Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 The outline application for this has been submitted - the numbers have been bumped to 'up to 120'. My comments about scrapping the Folly Lane traffic lights still stand, and I hope at least two of the Tupsley Ward councillors will pick up the idea and demand it as part of the planning gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Kenyon Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 I am happy to support the removal of these lights or restrict them to predestrain crossing on demand lights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted December 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 Thanks Jim - I've submitted my comments to planning. Let's hope we can get some common sense for a change! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragwert Posted December 27, 2013 Report Share Posted December 27, 2013 The outline application for this has been submitted - the numbers have been bumped to 'up to 120'. My comments about scrapping the Folly Lane traffic lights still stand, and I hope at least two of the Tupsley Ward councillors will pick up the idea and demand it as part of the planning gain. With you all the way on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragwert Posted December 27, 2013 Report Share Posted December 27, 2013 For those wanting to see what can be done this video of the Poynton Roundabout is very good. Interesting that Ben Hamilton Baillie, street designer, had also been in Hereford for the Broad street regeneration scheme, but this has been put on hold. This video also shows that the use of stone blocks as was supposed to have been used in Newmarket Street is perfectly OK. They will now be using coloured tarmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dippyhippy Posted December 27, 2013 Report Share Posted December 27, 2013 Coloured tarmac?? Who on earth dreamt this up, it sounds absolutely awful - surely stone would be more in keeping, and more hard wearing in the long term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted March 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 I am happy to support the removal of these lights or restrict them to predestrain crossing on demand lights. This application goes to Planning Committee on 2 April - it is recommended for approval. Some £150k is sought as a 106 contribution to 'sustainable transport measures'. The Traffic Manager acknowledges the potential for non-car borne access to local shops, schools and employment opportunities and it is this potential that off-sets concerns in relation to the potential for increased pressure on the signalised junction at Ledbury Road / Folly Lane junction. In other words, everyone will walk to the shops, schools and employment and there will no impact at the Ledbury Road/Folly Lane junction - in his dreams, what planet are these people on? This is a golden opportunity - and probably the only one - to get rid of these lights and do something much better. It will need councillors to call it - I really hope Cllrs Kenyon and North can do something worthwhile here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubique Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 I accept fully that more houses must be built - where , is another discussion which I cannot comment on at this time relating to the area up for comment. However I just want to use that catch all word relating to traffic jams and useless expensive traffic lights " another pinch point " -there , I have said it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Lloyd Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Not wishing to sound cynical bitter or whatever word is put on it but I am afraid money talks and the 106 offers lots of it. How on earth these developers make any money will always be a puzzle to me. Prior to being employed by the Council and indeed Herefordshire Housing do prospective employees have to pass an exam on the ability to talk the talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragwert Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 This application goes to Planning Committee on 2 April - it is recommended for approval. Some £150k is sought as a 106 contribution to 'sustainable transport measures'. The Traffic Manager acknowledges the potential for non-car borne access to local shops, schools and employment opportunities and it is this potential that off-sets concerns in relation to the potential for increased pressure on the signalised junction at Ledbury Road / Folly Lane junction. In other words, everyone will walk to the shops, schools and employment and there will no impact at the Ledbury Road/Folly Lane junction - in his dreams, what planet are these people on? This is a golden opportunity - and probably the only one - to get rid of these lights and do something much better. It will need councillors to call it - I really hope Cllrs Kenyon and North can do something worthwhile here. Whoever thought the installation of these bloody lights needs shooting.And what is it with this council and their love of them. The only way to reduce congestion is to keep the traffic moving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted March 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Whoever thought the installation of these bloody lights needs shooting.And what is it with this council and their love of them. The only way to reduce congestion is to keep the traffic moving Absolutely. I believe it was a unilateral decision by a certain lady councillor to bestow this horror on us … time for it to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Kenyon Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 Just had my say in the planning debate majoring on the traffic light removal on Ledbury road and safe routes to school lets see where this goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted April 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 Good man, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aylestone Voice Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 But the Council won't be making a decision as an appeal has been lodged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted April 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 But the Council won't be making a decision as an appeal has been lodged Eh? That doesn't make sense. There has to be a decision to appeal against, unless they're appealing against non-determination, and that can't be the case because its in front of the committee to determine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Lloyd Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 Yes please and what decisions were made on the others please? Once upon HT used to report on Planning Committee meetings but not any longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aylestone Voice Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 An appeal against non-determination has been lodged. Probably after the agenda was put together. See the Committee Update papers on the Council website. The Committee will have been asked what their decision would have been. Silly I know but those are the rules. The developer will look a bit stupid if the Committee would have approved it as they will now have to wait for the appeal and it could be dismissed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aylestone Voice Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 As to the other decisions there will be a list on the Council's website probably by this time tomorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted April 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 An appeal against non-determination has been lodged. Probably after the agenda was put together. See the Committee Update papers on the Council website. The Committee will have been asked what their decision would have been. Silly I know but those are the rules. The developer will look a bit stupid if the Committee would have approved it as they will now have to wait for the appeal and it could be dismissed!! Oh dear, ridiculous move by the developers - particularly when it was recommended for approval. They'll be looking at a 6 month delay to get a decision from the Planning Inspectorate now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Kenyon Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 I'm a little disappointed with the planning committee they voted 9-4 to refuse against the officers recommendation we could have concentrated on gaining the maximum 106 monies to improve the roads get rid of those lights on Ledbury road and the speed humps that plague the area instead the council will waste money on a battle they won't win.only 4 people objected to this development all from Hampton bishop on drainage grounds which will not make up any part of the appeal the councillors should have listen to the three Tupsley ward councillor and the people of Tupsley that all wanted this. THEY ARE MENT TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE SO NEXT LISTEN TO THEM!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aylestone Voice Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Jim And the Council will probably have to pay the costs of the appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twowheelsgood Posted April 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Jim, once the appeal against non-determination is decided - and it will surely be allowed - then you can continue to ensure 106 monies are spent on the things that will matter. Traffic studies for this application indicated an additional 18% load on the Ledbury Road - proof it were needed that those lights need to go! When are councillors going to realise that without an adopted local plan and a five-year land supply we are largely powerless against these edge of settlement applications? Why ignore planning law and officers advice? It only delays the inevitable and costs the council, ie us, punitive costs when we lose the appeal. If they want to make a point, make it by asking Officers why they are so far behind with the core strategy and the five year housing plan (3 years late and counting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenknight Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I see that this development has been acquired by Barratts who intend to resubmit for a planning adjustment..110 homes back on the table with a public exhibition planned at Hampton Dene Primary School on the 5th of March. I know there are a few people on the forum that would like to do away with the lights at the Folly Lane Church Road,Ledbury Road intersection. Realistically this can only work now if Church Road was made one way in favour of traffic coming off Ledbury Road or Folly Lane.If you travel down Church Road towards the junction you are completely blind to traffic on your right and siting a roundabout would not improve this because of the position of the monument. Placing a roundabout instead of the lights and enforcing one way traffic away from the site would speed up flow. Incidentally I recorded 5 mums using mobile phones whilst carrying their precious cargo in just one 15 minute period today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragwert Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 I see that this development has been acquired by Barratts who intend to resubmit for a planning adjustment..110 homes back on the table with a public exhibition planned at Hampton Dene Primary School on the 5th of March. I know there are a few people on the forum that would like to do away with the lights at the Folly Lane Church Road,Ledbury Road intersection. Realistically this can only work now if Church Road was made one way in favour of traffic coming off Ledbury Road or Folly Lane.If you travel down Church Road towards the junction you are completely blind to traffic on your right and siting a roundabout would not improve this because of the position of the monument. Placing a roundabout instead of the lights and enforcing one way traffic away from the site would speed up flow. Incidentally I recorded 5 mums using mobile phones whilst carrying their precious cargo in just one 15 minute period today. Just make Church Road a give way to the left only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenknight Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 Hi Ragwert..I did wonder if this would work though to be honest if this was the case I would probably make this left turn earlier. I live just inside the St Pauls 20 mph zone so travelling down Church Road you have a couple choices to make this move. By removing this option off the junction it would help reduce risk and unrestrict flow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts