Representation by Mehmet Ahmet
- Date submitted
- 5 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sirs As a resident of Isleham I am making representation on aspects related to the Transport Assessment, Travel Plan and Construction Management Plan. Some key points following my initial review are set out below: 1) Mitigation Plans - these are not very clear of how they plan to mitigate the transport impact and I have concerns that justification is being made on flawed assessments and assumptions. For example the Transport Assessment states that no capacity assessments (junction modelling) has been undertaken. Considering there are already major pressures and with increases of traffic following COVID considered to now be higher I am concerned that a real understanding of the network in the area has been understood. How can measures for example in the travel plan be effective if it is not understood fully. 2) An attempt of undertaking a road safety audit was completed. For a scheme as significant as this I and also AECOM would have expected an audit to be completed by an independent organisation. Further guarantees are required in my opinion as to whether the audit recommendations are sound in both engineering and operational terms to mitigate any safety impact. 3) Visibility Splays – I question the use 2.4m in the X axis for calculating visibility splays. The construction management plan references that Visibility splays are based on Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance for 60mph (100kph) roads showing a splay of 2.4m x 215m. From further reading of the DMRB it states that normally, an "X" distance of 4.5m shall be provided for a direct access where use in the design year is forecast not to exceed 500 AADT. The choice of set back distance is related to the forecast traffic using the access. For lightly used accesses, for example those serving a single dwelling or a small cul-de-sac of a half a dozen dwellings, the set back "X" may be reduced to 2.4m. The 2.4m set back relates to normally only one vehicle wishing to join the trunk road at one time. The 4.5m covers the situation where two light vehicles may want to accept the same gap in the trunk road traffic. Therefore further clarification is required by the applicant. 4) Engagement and public consultation – substandard statutory engagement with the public. The above points represents my initial observations. I would be happy to make an official submission on these points and others. Kind regards, Mehmet