As a Seven Mills resident, I object to Amendment No.3 as currently proposed, which would replace a planned vehicular bridge with a pedestrian and cycle bridge and reclassify the connecting Link Streets as Local Streets.
My principal concern is the loss of a planned vehicle connection and the resulting concentration of traffic onto the remaining routes, particularly the Fonthill Road junction serving Seven Mills. The assessment should demonstrate whether these routes can accommodate the completed development, including peak-hour commuting and school traffic, without unacceptable congestion or delays.
Before this amendment is approved, I request clear evidence addressing the following:
- Traffic displacement and junction capacity: A comparison of the original and proposed layouts, showing changes in traffic volumes, peak-hour queues, journey times and junction capacity, particularly at the Seven Mills access onto Fonthill Road.
- The combined impact of the amendments: Confirmation that the assessment accounts for the proposed redistribution of housing under Amendment No.18, alongside the revised road network and all planned development. If it does not, an updated assessment should be provided.
- Alternative access and resilience: An explanation of how residents, emergency services and other essential vehicles would access the area during an accident, road closure or significant disruption on the remaining routes.
- Realistic public transport assumptions: Identification of the bus and rail services, frequencies and capacity assumed in the modelling, distinguishing services already available from future improvements. The assessment should also test what happens if those improvements are delayed.
- Street reclassification: An explanation of how changing the connecting Link Streets to Local Streets affects their design, capacity, access arrangements and ability to accommodate displaced traffic.
I support improved walking and cycling connections. However, removing a planned vehicle connection requires a clear justification and evidence that the revised network will serve both existing and future residents adequately.
I request that the planned vehicular connection be retained unless a robust, publicly accessible assessment demonstrates that the alternative arrangements are sufficient. Any necessary mitigation should have identified funding, responsibility and delivery triggers linked to occupation of the development.
As a Seven Mills resident, I object to Amendment No.4 as currently proposed, which would delete the North–South Avenue/Links road objective.
My concern is that this would remove a planned element of the transport network without sufficient clarity about how its intended function would be provided elsewhere. The explanation that the objective is no longer required because of the revised road layout needs to be supported by evidence that the remaining network can adequately serve existing and future residents.
Before this amendment is approved, I request that the Council:
1. Identify precisely what would be removed: Provide a clear comparison map showing the original North–South Avenue/Links objective, the proposed network and the alternative routes that would fulfil its function.
2. Explain the consequences for connectivity: Demonstrate how the deletion would affect local journeys, access to schools, shops and services, and traffic using the Fonthill Road junction serving Seven Mills.
3. Assess the combined changes: Demonstrate the cumulative effect of deleting this objective alongside the replacement of the vehicular bridge under Amendment No.3 and the proposed housing redistribution under Amendment No.18, taking account of the completed development.
4. Address phased delivery: Explain how adequate access and capacity would be maintained throughout construction and occupation, including periods before planned public transport improvements become operational.
5. Protect future options: Explain whether deleting the objective would allow development to obstruct a route that may be needed later, and whether safeguarding the corridor would provide a reasonable alternative to removing it entirely.
The justification should explain why this connection is no longer needed on transport and accessibility grounds, rather than relying solely on its consistency with other proposed changes.
I request that the North–South Avenue/Links objective be retained unless the Council demonstrates that its function can be adequately met by the revised network. If its delivery is deferred, the relevant corridor should remain protected pending evidence that it is no longer required.