As the main purpose of this S38 is to introduce additional car parking spaces, is there any particular reason this is not mentioned in the title or description of this scheme? This is how rumours start that funding for walking and cycling projects is constantly being diverted towards general roads and motor traffic spending. Not withstanding, after viewing the poor quality scheme drawing I would like to make the following observations:

1. The scheme drawing does not reflect the existing layout of area. The school's main entrance is where the proposed pedestrian crossing is indicated, the second school pedestrian entrance which is located at the northern end of the site and and two private dwelling entrances opposite the school have been omitted. Based on the outline of the school building in the proposal, the image below indicates the existing number and location of the entrances impacted by this scheme.

Details of approved planning applications already under construction showing location of entrances opposite the school:

2. Design of new footpath: Positioning the new footpath between the carriageway and the new car parking spaces is unacceptable if the safety of pedestrians, many of whom will be under 12 years of age, is a consideration. As per planning application 23/60493, the footpath should be placed inside any car parking spaces.

3. Mini bus drop off location: Currently, two mini buses drop and collect children from the school. They usually park outside the main school pedestrian entrance where the children can safely alight and board. As the proposal drawing contained so many errors, it is not possible to tell if the location of the crossing south of main entrance is correct as there is a private entrance opposite this location. I am therefore going to guess that the crossing should be just north of the main school entrance but if this is the case, where will the 2 mini buses now park? They won't be able to park outside the school entrance as they currently do as they will block the view of the pedestrian crossing from northbound motor traffic.

4. Pedestrian crossing location: As mentioned previously, it's not possible to tell where the crossing will be located due to the errors in the proposal drawing but let's assume it will be at the southern end of the school near the main pedestrian entrance. Due to the number of private entrances opposite this location, the majority of new car parking spaces will be closer to the northern end of the school where the second school pedestrian entrance is (omitted from the proposal drawing) . People exiting from and accessing cars parked at the northern end of the school are not going to walk down to the main entrance, press a button, wait for a red light, cross the road and walk back up the road again. Can the proposal be updated to reflect how people actually behave rather than how you want them to behave?

5. Net gain of car parking spaces: Considering the number of private entrances, the necessary space required on approach to pedestrian crossings to ensure pedestrian safety and the potential relocation of the mini-bus parking area, how many new car parking spaces will be created and how many existing spaces will be lost? There are usually around 20 motor vehicles parked outside the official school car parking spaces at 2:40pm so how many of these will be accommodated by the new spaces?

The image below shows an area on the right that is currently used as an informal parking area for 4-5 vehicles. The proposal indicates this will be replaced with a footpath. Does this mean parking will no longer be permitted here or will there be an informal understanding that illegal parking on footpaths will be ok?

6. Public lighting: The proposal indicates street lighting will be introduced along the length of the car parking area. As this parking area is only meant to serve the school during term for no more than 10-15 mins after 8:40AM in the morning and the same again around 2:40PM in the afternoon, is lighting really necessary? A recently approved planning application for one of the private dwellings opposite the school specifically stated that 'no lighting shall be permitted within the curtilage of the site at the roadside entrance or on the gate piers in the interest of traffic safety and to prevent light pollution' - have all attempts to curtail light pollution in the area now been abandoned?

7. Increased risk of traffic collisions: With the addition of parallel parking opposite the school, the risk of motor traffic collisions will increase. Northbound traffic accessing these new spaces will now need to cross the carriageway against hidden oncoming southbound motor traffic - something that was not possible before (see image below). Further risk of collision will be created as drivers try to exit these spaces, especially when facing northbound. Motor vehicles exiting these new spaces and trying to return from the same direction they came from will need to perform a 3-point-turn on the carriageway. While doing so they will need to be observant of motor traffic approaching on this 50kph road from both directions as well as vehicles entering and exiting the parking spaces directly outside the school.

To finish, everyone would acknowledge that traffic management around the school in the mornings and evenings is chaotic however one accidental safety aspect of the congestion is that motor traffic ends up moving very slow which does make things relatively safe. If something can be done to improve the current scenario then that would be welcomed but I would question the overall improvement this scheme as proposed will actually bring considering the construction costs and subsequent visual changes to the location.

Section 38: New footpath scheme at An Scoil An Spioraid Naoimh on the R511 Roxborough - Submissions

Primary tabs