Housing Development Oppostion - need to know minimum road width

spmc

mr_taffy wrote: »

Where i live there is an application in now to build 336 houses and the road they want to use as accses is 4.8 meters wide and they are saying it is capable of taking the 1000 estimated cars that will eventualy usr the estate a day.
if a 4x4 and a car pass on the road there are a couple of inches to spare an arttic lorry would never pass if a car was parked on the road

Mr Taffy

that sounds like a lot of houses off a single access, is there also a separate emergency access?

spmc

anotherbigspender wrote: »

Yes it can. Greenbelt land is increasingly coming under pressure to meet higher housing targets. If Council's can't find suitable options for accommodating new housing on other sites, they are able to review their Greenbelt designations and take land out of the Greenbelt (the reverse is also true). In which case, it would be referred to greenfield (unless it had been built on before) and not Greenbelt.

Given that this site is allocated for residential development, there is little you can do to oppose the principle of the development, but you can still go through the detail.

As anotherbigspender says a review of the green belt is a fundamental part of most if not all Regional Spatial Strategies

mr_taffy_2

spmc wrote: »

Mr Taffy

that sounds like a lot of houses off a single access, is there also a separate emergency access?

They have subbmitted plans for another accses aswell but it is on an accident blackspot where there are to blind bends within 50m of the proposed entrance.

http://www.ukplanning.com/carmarthenshire/doc/Drawing-7566140.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=7566140&location=VOLUME6&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

The drawing dont show the real effect of the bends on the roads tho. There have been 30 accidents on the road in the last 12 months.

LTA

spmc wrote: »

LTA there is not a set distance over which say 4.8m is acceptable, it is subjective. If you have a road 4.8m wide that is fully parked up even on one side you will not get two cars passing which means that if two cars meet someone is going to have to reverse to find a location to pass. Reversing on the highway is to be discouraged for safety reasons but of course you will always get a level of reversing. Even with no parking two hgv's will not be able to pass so you then need to weigh up the liklihood of two hgv's meeting. The more houses the more likely it is.

On the other hand some roads that are generally 4.8m wide will have opportunities for vehicles to pass - such as at junctions - and as long as oncoming drivers can see each others vehicles and sensibly wait in passing places it is not necessarily a proble.

Manual for Streets seeks to avoid prescriptive road width requirements saying instead that designers need to demonstrate that safe vehicle movement is possible. You often now see roads of varying widths and the designers will have produced vehicle swept path plots (google autotrack) to demonstrate that safe vehicle movement is possible.

From the start of your post where you refer to traffic section am I right in thinking that the an application has now been submitted?

Has the Spatial Strategy been adopted yet or is it still being progressed?

Ok thanks for that, well at least I'm not trawling through looking for a definite amount where 4.8m is unnacceptable!

Nope no passing places just slighter more room on the corners of the loop where people tend to reverse to let others pass.

I don't know if the Spatial Strategy has been adopted yet I have to say.

Application still not submitted but there's a lot of measuring going on!