The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.
A417 Missing Link
Received 31 August 2021
From Elizabeth Gaffer
“I live on [redacted] and have concerns about the following in relation to the A417 development: 1 Increased speed of traffic on the A436 Modelling for this project has already predicted an increase in the speed of traffic on the A436. This will create greater hazards for both residents and people using the area e.g. Barber wood, as well as wildlife living in the area of the A436. This could be mitigated by reducing the current speed limit of 50 mph to 30 mph, particularly between east of Oxford Cottages and the new Ullenwood Junction roundabout. 2 Increased volume of traffic on the A436 Modelling suggests that traffic volume will decrease on this road, but the developed A417 will attract more traffic from Oxford making the route more popular due to reduced congestion. 3 Noise pollution along the A436 As a result of increased speed and volume of traffic. 4 Danger at the Ullenwood/Cowley cross roads on A436. There will be increased hazard, due to increased speeds and increase in traffic volumes over long term. Mitigation if the scheme were to go ahead would be measures put in place to slow traffic at this crossroads and to ensure safe crossing for WCH traffic and for motorised traffic either crossing or turning onto the A436. 5 Environmental impact of the proposed new A417 scheme The development will result in a net loss of wildlife habitat and not a net gain, which is the ambition of emerging legislation. This is a pivotal scheme in the country and so should be setting an example. At a time when it is so widely acknowledged that natural spaces are more precious than ever, any new scheme should avoid increased impact on the most sensitive wildlife habitat. The road expansion increases severance and destruction within Crickley Hill and Barrow Wake SSSI. No buffer zone has been included in your latest proposal. Natural England’s standing advice states that “For ancient woodlands, you should have a buffer zone of at least 15 meters to avoid root damage. Where assessment shows other impacts are likely to extend beyond this distance, you’re likely to need a larger buffer zone”. E.g. impact of air pollution with this scheme where there is a significant increase in traffic. Mitigation, if the scheme were to go ahead, would be to implement this minimum buffer zone. There are ancient and veteran trees outlined in the PEIR report that will be lost or significantly damaged as a result of the scheme (T17, T19, T157, T159, T57, T126, T127, ATI no: 196380, ATI no: 14130 and 143988, T67, T90, T108, ATI no: 155073, T171, T172, T174, T190 and T205). This could be mitigated by all ancient and veteran trees within or adjacent to the site boundary should be retained in situ and provided with a root protection of 15 times the stem diameter or 5 meters beyond the crown if that's greater, in line with Natural England’s Standing Advice.”