Highways Proposals that CREATE Serious Safety Issues
Junction hazards
Diggle is effectively a cul-de-sac, with one entrance and exit at the south end of Huddersfield Road. Oldham Council propose to control queues into the village by means of a new single traffic lane controlled by new traffic lights. Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) still have several concerns about the impact on the highway & about the safety of road users & pedestrians as outlined in their most recent consultation responses (Oct & Nov 2017) where they state that:
"our primary concern is that the scheme is unsafe” [Transport for Greater Manchester consultation response]
Signal control into village:
TfGM state: “the one-way section appears to be 120m which introduces a significant length of lost time. There may be implications of queuing traffic extending to the priority junction of Huddersfield Road/Standedge Road to the south & delays to traffic/buses generally”.
In fact the distance from traffic lights to junction = only 70 metres (maximum 11 car lengths), therefore it is inevitable that this proposal will result in traffic queueing back to the main A670 - increasing the risk of traffic accidents/collisions. Should the junction priority be changed to accommodate the above queues at peak times – it will not solve traffic flow issues, nor reduce the risk of accidents.
Turnaround + signal control out of village:
Oldham Council (via Unity Partnership) are the planning applicant for the highways plans. Unity Partnership submitted a 'Transport Assessment' as part of the planning process in 2015 (it has not changed since then). When TfGM were consulted on the highways plans & TA - they commented that "most of the Transport Assessment is lifted from TfGM's responses to Oldham Council”. TfGM say: "we are also concerned that the queue from the right turn into the car park will extend to the one-way section", they say that their data “indicates that the queue will extend back to the one-way section during the busiest 15 minute period, even if the car park is only used by 60% of the demand. If the exit from the one-way section is blocked there will be excessive queuing in both directions on Huddersfield Road and the road will become less safe as there will be vehicles effectively ‘stranded’ in the one-way section”.
Pedestrian safety issues
Car park hazards: Pedestrians will have to cross the entrance to a drop-off that also operates as a turn-around & car park. This is a clear pedestrian hazard.
Inadequate parking: The drop-off and collection area allows for only 22 cars at one time: This will be inadequate for drop-off and wholly so for collection when – in effect – all parents seeking to collect pupils will be present at the same time, with space for just 22 to park.
TfGM provided a separate consultation response with 'additional comments on the car park development' in Oct 2017. The implication of that response is that the impact of the two developments together (the school development + nearby car park development) may not have been assessed as part of the applicant's Transport Assessment: “junctions have been assessed in the TA issued for the school development; the same should be done for the car park development". Also, TfGM feel that safety has not been properly considered: "safety - there is no mention of the safety implications in the Transport Statement. No provision is made for residents to cross Huddersfield Road to the new residents car park”
There has been no update to the transport assessments & associated planning documents since 2015. Therefore, residents objections & concerns are not unfounded; experts in highways & pedestrian safety appear to share our concerns about the inadequacy of the plans, design, impact assessment and data interpretation.
Cycle and equestrian safety - TfGM state that "these road users are considerably slower than motor vehicles. A failsafe method of detecting these users along the single lane section will need to be determined to avoid a dangerous conflict whereby opposing traffic can be allowed to receive a green signal”. Oldham Councils answer is that, "the length of carriageway is straight and drivers will have good visibility of them”. Oldham Council traffic officers also claim that there will be ‘adequate room to accommodate both sets of users’, ‘should the situation arise’. But surely the point is that the situation should not arise since it would be a potentially ‘dangerous conflict’ & that it would be difficult to reduce the signal timing to accommodate such users.
The narrow-carriageway issue
If the planned scheme goes ahead at Diggle, children walking to school from the southern end of the village (i.e. from all other parts of Saddleworth) will have to share a congested roadway with cars & buses.
There is only one narrow path on one side of the road at the entrance to Diggle; there is a retaining wall on the other side. In order to widen the footpath (as the Council claim they will do) the retaining wall will need to be moved back; but no such measures have been included in the highways planning application.
The 'retaining wall' issue
At a 'pre-planning consultation' in December 2015, four 'highways' options for Diggle were presented to residents. The majority of residents who responded to the consultation objected to all four options (the general consensus being that moving the school to Diggle would result in unacceptable highways & safety issues & should therefore stay in Uppermill).
The image below shows the option eventually chosen by Unity Partnership & Oldham Council. This option includes measures to move back a large retaining wall at the entrance to Diggle in order to achieve footpath widening on the opposite side. However - the work to the wall is excluded from the plans submitted with the planning application. A key safety measure & integral part of the chosen option has not been included in the planning application - nor has it been included in project costings. No doubt that works to move such a large retaining wall (adjacent to a major A road) will cost £££,£££ hundreds of thousands at the very least.
- Why were these extraordinary measures & costs not considered when comparing the Uppermill site with the Diggle site?
- Why go to such great lengths to solve a problem that does not need to exist? Such costs & measures would be completely unnecessary if the school were to remain in Uppermill?
Oldham Council are misleading all parties about the true highways costs & issues associated with the Diggle Option
The Council decided to refresh the planning application for the Diggle Application, thereby rejecting the Uppermill site within days of the Judicial Review verdict being announced in March 2017:
- They failed to take the opportunity to look again at the highways data, models and design plans for Diggle.
- They also failed to take the opportunity to gather any information on the purported highways issues at Uppermill (certain councillors & council officers, through local media, have voiced the view that highways issues make building at Uppermill ‘difficult’ or ‘impossible’ – these assertions have never been backed up with any facts or figures):
Question put to OMBC (Helen Lockwood) through FOI request:
"Please forward any up-to-date evidence showing that the chosen Diggle option represents better value for money than the two Uppermill site options in terms of public money (i.e. expected expenditure for highways & other costs not being met by the ESFA budget for building the school, as a result of moving the school to Diggle - versus - keeping the school in Uppermill)"
Reply from Mark Prestwich on the 11th October 2017:
"Such updated information does not exist. However, a direct comparison cannot be made as, the extent of any highway improvements to the Uppermill site have not been designed or costed. However, in the event that the School did remain in Uppermill, the Council would not have a budget available for these off site works as no capital receipt would be generated via any landswap arrangement"
What Mr. Prestwich fails to mention is that, the Council don't have the funds to complete all the necessary highways work in Diggle either - for example, the extra funds needed (costing hundreds of thousands if no more) needed to move the retaining wall at the entrance to Diggle. This is an integral part of the proposed highways works - but hasn't been included in the costs!
Therefore - there is no substance at all to the argument that the highways works in Diggle will be paid for by the 'capital receipt' from the 'landswap deal' - the Council already know that the capital receipt won't even begin to cover the very expensive highways works required at Diggle.
The worst place to put a car park & turn around!
Not only is it a pointless development (it will not mitigate traffic problems, but will in fact create them) but, together with the proposed adjoining artificial sport pitches - in the open rural landscape of the Diggle valley - it will create an highly visible eyesore of extensive proportions - visible for miles around! Destroying a rural landscape.
