Planning application for 77 houses on Royal Albert site

Dynamo has objected to the planning application on the grounds that, as it stands, it will increase traffic along well-used routes.  Below is the text of our objection.

“I write on behalf of Dynamo (Lancaster and District Cycle Campaign) to object to this application on the grounds that it is detrimental to the County Council’s stated aim to promote cycling and other forms of sustainable transport.

“Our specific reasons are:

“- The new development will increase traffic along Ashton Road. The section between Haverbreaks Road and Cherry Tree Drive is a well-used cycle route between the city centre and Booths on the A6 and Lancaster University. It is already a somewhat hairy ride in the rush hour – particularly when heading south, with the wall of the Islamic College on one side and lorries on the other.

“- This and other developments will also increase traffic along Ashford Road, which is another well-used cycle route to the University. This road is unsuitable for more traffic. At one end there is a bottle neck and at the other a blind bend.”


About lancasterdynamo

Dynamo is a cycling group, established in 1994, to work with official bodies, other cycling organisations and interested individuals to promote cycling as a safe, enjoyable and healthy means of transport.
This entry was posted in planning applications and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Planning application for 77 houses on Royal Albert site

  1. Would’nt it have been preferable to agree to the planning application with the strongly worded request to improve cycle access on Ashton Road?

  2. We’ve tried that before with one of the developments at Heysham Mossgate. We took a neutral stance on the development itself but asked the City Council to require the developer to make a contribution to an off-road Heysham-Lancaster route. (After all, all these developments depend on publicly funded infrastructure and the new houses make further demands on them.). The officer’s report noted our comment and stated that the it risked making the development unattractive to the developer. So nothing happened. Perhaps an objection in this case might make them think again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s