Long Ashton Neighbourhood Development plan.
I have concerns about Policy VES 1 and the inclusions of appendix H – the Hamilton Baillie report.
(the HB report)
The Policy is expressed as “ Implement the Village Enhancement scheme” The preamble and
justification does not make it clear to the reader whether there is in fact a “ Village Enhancement
Scheme that the Parish council wishes to adopt., and in particular whether the Hamilton Baillie
report is proposed as the Scheme which the parish council proposes to adopt. If that document is
not the scheme I struggle to see what it is that the council wish to implement I would respectfully
suggest that the Council cannot lawfully adopt a policy to implement a scheme without being clear
as to what that scheme is. They can adopt a policy to develop a scheme in accordance with
objectives s or principles, but that is not what VES 1 says.
I note that Appendix H is entitled Village Enhancement Scheme, notwithstanding that it is a third
party report rather than a parish council document, and in the preamble to the policy it is described
as follows “ these are currently ideas rather than detailed designs, and if adopted will need to be
refined by consultation with residents, affected businesses the Parish council and North Somerset.”
When concerns have been raise in the earlier consultation they have been brushed aside as the
document is merely ideas and they will be consulted on in future. However, the effect of this is to
deny consultation on the principles and ideas, and reduce the future consultation to how the
scheme can be implemented. I also note the inclusion of the Parish Council in the proposed future
consultees. It is perhaps remarkable that the Parish council – who presumably paid for the report,
appear not to have considered it.
I have made representations about what I consider to be flaws in the report in the earlier
consultation these do not appear to have been considered, let alone been taken conscientiously
into account in putting this plan forward to the North Somerset Council. The consultation matrices
refer to my comments, but merely refers back to the consultation statement which makes no
mention of them at all.
I set out below the concerns which I have about the HB report, which I do not consider to be an
adequate document to be adopted, certainly not in its present form I would suggest that a policy to
enhance the village with the principles and objectives set out in the Neighbourhood development
plan would suffice., and indeed a statement that the parish could will develop specific proposals to
dos in consultation with all concerned could be added if so desired.
Specific comments on the HB report
In part the report seems to be an attempt to apply to Long Ashton the views and beliefs of the
author as to how a village should look and behave, and indeed to bemoan the way in which Long
Ashton has developed. The council should appreciate that Long Ashton is essentially a linear village
with limited access points and as result the bulk of the traffic flows through village along the Long
Ashton Road/Weston Road axis (whether the journeys start or finish in the village or not), and I do
not think that there is likely to be any significant reduction in traffic .
Introduction: As noted above this appears to be subjective and in part complaint about the way in
which Long Aston does not conform to the Authors’ ideas of how a village should look. Criticism of
public life taking place behind walls away from the main street may be a criticism of the siting of
the village hall but it is where it is and given the history of Long Ashton as a village or collection of
hamlets along a main road it is perhaps not surprising that some developments are not where you
might put them if you were planning a different shape of village.
The Long Ashton Context – I would suggest that the figure for bus movements is unlikely – First bus
timetables suggest 6 -8 bus movements per hour - 3 in each direction, and while there are some
additional services from ABus, and school buses I would suggest the figure is not currently
accurate.9 nor was it when the report was written – if anything bus numbers have increased this
year. I would also contest the description of parking as haphazard. The bulk of the parking along
Long Ashton/Weston road is predictable . I also note that while views on Providence Lane were
divided as to the adverse impact of parked cars on the use of the road by pedestrians and others it
is purely described in a negative way here. In fact the parked cars tend to contribute to reduction of
traffic speed. Certainly in a number of places traffic does not easily pass when there is a line of
parked cars.
Traffic patterns – I do not have a copy of the 2009 traffic study but I suspect from my own
experience that there is some use of Long Ashton as an alternative route for some purposes. In
terms of speed my perception is that average speeds at the Glebe road junction will have declined
as a result of the increased volume of traffic, and possibly increased vehicle widths – certainly
drivers seem more cautious about passing oncoming vehicles where there are parked cars on the
stretch between the junctions with Glebe Road and Yanley Lane. The current version of the draft
plan makes the point about average speed, although I suspect that this is data derived from the
fixed speed recorder east of the almshouses, on the widest and least obstructed part of the road
within the village confines. The key here is to reduce the extent to which drivers can see a clear
wide road ahead of them, which would be
Map P5 –I would question the designation of the section of Yanley Lane between Long Ashton Road
and Glebe road as a “ main vehicle Route” whereas Glebe Road is not. Given that this part of Yanley
Lane is one way all vehicle traffic from the South should go up glebe road , which is also not subject
to a width restriction. , and has perfectly adequate pavements.
Initial observations I would agree that improvements to the footways would be a good idea – and
this may be achieved by narrowing the carriageway in places, but it is noticeable that in a number
of instances ( e.g. south side between Glebe road and Lodge Drive) there is limited road space
unless you remove the parking, which is a problem as there is no practicable alternative. Similar
issues may arise by the Bird in Hand The fragmented nature of the village as observed above is the
way the village is and absent major redevelopment is going to remain. I would also dispute the
suggestion that the Angel is not a notable landmark, but this begs the question of whether they
should feel under any obligation to do so. Is it for the parish council to tell independent business
how to run their operations?
The consistent use of pejorative language to describe the village is unfair and based on subjective
aesthetic judgements. It is apparent that the author does not like the local stone walls – but I would
suggest they are neither bleak nor unattractive, but rather are part of the character of the village o
a technical note a good many of them are also retaining walls. I would also point out that whilst the
‘unnecessarily sweeping geometry’ of the junction with the B3128 may be a relic of the pre by pass
days, it is not that which cuts the village off from Ashton Court Park - it is the 3128 itself In passing
do you know what evidence HB have for the suggestion that the village feels cut off from the park
psychologically?
Observations : Western approach The suggestion is made that traffic coming from Wraxall on the
B3130 may be confused by the size of Weston Road into using that route rather than the Bypass is, I
would suggest unrealistic. Drivers who know the roads will make their own choices, and those who
do not are in my view more likely to be guided at a well lit and signed junction by the Road signs and
Sat navs than road width. In terms of influencing driver choices here, I suspect that the key issues
will be their judgement as to which route is more congested. It may be that the 2+ lane on the A370
has an adverse effect on traffic through Long Ashton, but there may well be other reasons. The
junction redesign proposals seem to be overcomplicated and rely on assumed knowledge of the
implications of the change in tarmac/ paving. In a place I would suggest that a simpler approach
would be a formal crossing point similar to that where the festival way crosses the B3128. I would
agree with the suggestion that greater emphasis on the village entrance at the junction with Wild
Country Lane would be helpful. This would align road features to affect traffic with the shift to a
built up area. The implicatins of the change of paving here, as with the junction at the eastern end
is unlikely to be meaningful to drivers using the B roads and not coming into Long Ashton at all.
Central area. Again the report rails against the current distribution of shops and other public
buildings , which may reflect the authors views but is not going to change. I would agree that some
improvements could be made here, although in the absence of any likely diminution of the level of
traffic using the road, it needs to reflect the fact that Weston Road is a significant traffic route, and
this carries with it safety implications. The suggestion of a small children’s play area on the green
next to the Co-Op does not look at all safe, and given the nearby facilities by the village hall I
wonder what the point is. Safety reasons also suggest to me that a formal pedestrian crossing here
should remain as this is clearly understood by road users, and incidentally should remain offset
from the entrance to the Co-op again for safety reasons. Whilst some steps to seek to realign the
road to make it less straight may be practical , it should be noted that the parked cars do have
something of this effect already. I have seen Tom Gardner’s much more detailed comments to the
Parish Council on the shared space concept and the questions he raises about the safety and
comfort implications of a shared space option. I would share his concern about shared space as
indicated in the HB report. I have seen instances of shared space working, but usually only where
there is not significant through traffic and where the road layout also contributes to a reduction in
speed.
In the light of the concerns being expressed about the potential adverse impact on the elderly and
disabled, to which one may add children who may find the shared space idea difficult to grasp, I
would be interested to see the Parish Council’s equalities impact assessment, or other steps taken to
satisfy itself in connection with its public sector equality duty.
I would also disagree with the reports assumption that it is a bad thing for traffic to park outside
shops where it is safe to do so
Eastern Approach
The statement that the junction with the B3128 “ seem designed to increase traffic volumes and
speeds through the village” is with respect not supported by the facts on the ground. The default
for traffic on the B3128 is to continue straight on; any traffic coming into Long Ashton has to make a
positive turn. The Road signage is also clear that the main road continues straight on. There may be
some argument for making the entrance from the Bristol direction more of a turn to seek to reduce
traffic speeds, but again the issue here is that the concern is effectively that the village does not
start there – notwithstanding the presence of the row of houses on the north side. The proposal for
changes to this junction again seems to rely heavily on changes in road surface to indicate
pedestrian movements, which in the context of the main traffic movements on the B3128 are out of
context. I would also point out that eh current structure, and relationship with the much maligned
walls, does
The suggestion for punctuation marks on the long stretch towards the village centre is useful in
terms of reminding drivers that they are still in a village., although again I would question whether
changes in paving is sufficient; there is a risk that their use could undermine the impact of any
paving or road colour changes to highlight the area of the centre of the village. I would also question
the description of the junction with Yanley Lane as “ important” Indeed there seems to be an
obsession with the idea that this junction, and indeed this stretch of Yanley lane is significant. This
may be due to a misapprehension as to the extent to which it is used to access the cycle path.
The Policy Context
Whilst in general moving to a reduced speed through the village may have some benefits I am
sceptical as to whether at the level discussed this is a material factor in decision making by
individuals as to whether to walk or cycle more.
I am also concerned that the assumption of restricting parking and effectively clearing road space
and sight lines is consistent with this. Narrowing on its own, at least at the level proposed is unlikely
to achieve this, where the road is still clear of obstructions and the sight lines are good. The
proposal for a restricted parking zone raisins significant enforcement issues .
In connection with specific proposals not otherwise mentioned I would suggest that the proposals
for the head of Yanley Lane be dropped. They run the risk of increasing traffic down this narrow
unpavemented stretch of the lane when there is a practical alternative via Glebe Road, and the
‘placemaking’ actively makes the junction less safe by obstruction of the site lines . Again there is an
assertion of ‘many cycle movements’ at this junction. I would suggest that is not the case, and I
would be interested to know the evidential basis for this suggestion.
I would also suggest that the proposals in connection with the Angel are ill thought out. The
proposal to move the parking to the north side will not have any impact on the outdoor use – there
is not sufficient room for the carriageway and a line of cares on either side of the road and any
significant space in front of the pub. Given the pleasant coach yard currently used by the pub as an
outside space I can see no reason why there is a need to.
The B3218 Junction could benefit from modification, particularly to remove the road markings
which date from the time when vehicle access to the park through the gate was permitted, and to
add a pedestrian refuge for those crossing the road to the North of the junction as there is to the
South. . However, it remains a significant route for traffic from Bristol to Failand and Clevedon, and
the interests of those road users should be taken into account.
I am happy to make some alternative suggestions which may be taken into account in developing
the Village Enhancement Scheme.
1 Rather than spend significant amounts of money on relaying stretches of road with stones, I
would suggest that most road users and in particular cyclists would welcome more attention to the
state of the road surface, particularly along the margins where the state of the road can be a hazard
for cyclists.
2 In order to contribute to the reduction of speed through the village, and in particular on the
approach to the Post office from the East, some form of speed repeater or reminder, and as a more
radical step adopting the approach of a significant road narrowing , as used at Barrow and Norton St
Philip. This stretch of Long Ashton road between Chestnut road and Providence Lane is currently
excessively wide, and generally not used for parking.
3 Exploring the possibility of a central island extending along the frontage of the co op and possibly a
further one outside the Little Tipple. This will I would suggest help to break up the perception of a
through route.
4 Take advantage of the proposed redevelopment of the Auto Scuderia site to improve the visibility
at the junction of Glebe road and the Long Ashton road. This may potentially link to creating some
form of ‘ landmark’ linking with the striking cedar at the end of Glebe Close.
5 Parking at the Ashton Court end would be improved if Bristol City council could be persuaded not
to charge for the car park in the park itself.
Yours Faithfully
David Owens