----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Andrews" <paul.p.andrews@btinternet.com>
To: <dan.czunys@goyh.gsi.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:31 AM
Subject: Fw: Development at Eden House Road
> Dan,
>
> This is another piece of correspondence on the highways issues.
>
> You will see this is completely unsatisfactory. County have done a traffic
> count on the Pickering Road, but are not saying if they have done a count
> on the access road (which leads to Eden Camp), and in no circumstances
> have they taken into account the quantity of traffic during the holiday
> season for either road.
>
> They talk about general gudance and then fail to say how they will apply
> it - other than accept whatever modelling is done by the developer -
> instead of doingf their own modelling.
>
> Regards
>
> Councillor Paul Andrews
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Andrews" <paul.p.andrews@btinternet.com>
> To: "Geof Dibb" <GEOF.DIBB@goyh.gsi.gov.uk>
> Cc: "John Clark" <croptonmill@hotmail.com>; "cllr.lindsay.burr"
> <cllr.lindsay.burr@ryedale.gov.uk>
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 10:29 AM
> Subject: Fw: Development at Eden House Road
>
>
>> Geof,
>>
>> This is the other mail I said I'd send on to you.
>>
>> Councillor Paul Andrews
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "James Kennedy" <James.Kennedy@northyorks.gov.uk>
>> To: "Paul Andrews" <paul@sail-apollo.fsnet.co.uk>
>> Cc: <paul.p.andrews@btinternet.com>
>> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 8:56 AM
>> Subject: Re: Development at Eden House Road
>>
>>
>> Councillor Andrews,
>>
>> Apologies for not replying to your email dated 16/11. I have been off
>> work on paternity leave, which started unexpectedly so I didn't have time
>> to set up my automatic reply. On my return I noted you had requested a
>> reply the following week but as this deadline had passed and the
>> application had also been to committee I hadn't responded.
>>
>> 1. I don't know about possible job numbers, we look at the type of
>> development (office, warehousing etc) and floor space to determine trip
>> generations. The figure of 272 and 67 refer to the entire site covered
>> by this planning application. Any expansion of the site would presumably
>> need a separate planning application and would come with its own
>> additional traffic.
>>
>> 2. No. A daily flow of 12,000 does not mean there must be a roundabout,
>> the flows on both the main and side road need to be taken into account.
>> I don't know what your figure of 8,000 refers to.
>>
>> With regard to type of junction arrangement there is no set figure where
>> a junction must change from one type to another. There is advice in the
>> Design Manual for Roads and Bridges which sets out design criteria for
>> Trunk Roads and Motorways and this would suggest where the flow on the
>> main road is approx 11,000 the side road would need a flow of approx
>> 6,000 before a roundabout is required.
>>
>> However these figures are only general guidance and rather than just
>> looking at traffic flows we request the developer carries out detailed
>> traffic modelling of junctions to ensure they can cope with the expected
>> development traffic. The modelling looks at dimensions of the junction,
>> gaps in the traffic and traffic flows.
>>
>> 3. The 272 and 67 are the figures the applicant has used in their
>> modelling of the junction.
>>
>> 4. The traffic figures and survey data were provided by the applicant,
>> counts were taken on 18 July and speed surveys done on 27 Sept.
>>
>> 5. All the traffic figures are in the appendices of the Transport
>> Assessment submitted with the application, I've only got the 1 copy,
>> Ryedale DC may have spare copies ?
>>
>> Regards
>> James.
>>
>>>>> "Paul Andrews" <paul@sail-apollo.fsnet.co.uk> 16/11/07 10:33 >>>
>> James,
>>
>> Just to follow this matter a little further:
>>
>> I note what you say about the busiest hour.
>>
>> Can you let me have the answers to the following questions:
>>
>> 1. My understanding is that the project is intended to provide 800 jobs -
>> 400 in the first phase. Is the figure of 272 and 67 related to the 400 of
>> Phase I or the 800 of the whole development?
>>
>> 2. As regards the general situation, am I right in understanding that
>> your
>> position is that, in order to justify a roundabout, there has to be a
>> prospect of 12,000 vehicle movements a day, but that you can only see
>> 8,000
>> on the basis of the figures available to you?
>>
>> 3. Do these figures include the 272 and 67?
>>
>> 4. Is it correct that the figures you are using depend principally on
>> traffic counts taken on 18th July and 27th September?
>>
>> 5. Can you let me have the numbers of traffic movements observed on the
>> road
>> on those two days, and of the periods or hours during which those counts
>> were taken?
>>
>> It would be very much appreciated if you could let me have this
>> information
>> before Tuesday next week.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Councillor Paul Andrews
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>