FOLLOWING the recent opening of the Anderton Lane/Buzzard Road junction, I am astounded to see that westbound traffic on Anderton Lane is now being routed directly to the A386 via Buzzard Way. 

While I accept that the development always included a realignment of Anderton Lane and a connection to it from Buzzard Way, the documents supporting the original planning application did not specifically indicate that the estate roads were intended to become a principal through traffic route. 

Placing the 'Give Way' point on Anderton Lane rather than Buzzard Way has brought an influx of all types of unnecessary and inappropriate traffic into a densely populated location where children comprise a significant percentage of the residents. 

Moreover, a number of the designated children's play areas are now close to a main road rather than a quiet estate road. 

While I do not know the motivation behind the traffic routing, I cannot accept that using Buzzard Way to connect Anderton Lane to the A386 can possibly present a better alternative to the existing junction which benefits from good visibility splays and an approach without parked cars; pedestrians; restricted visibility or the other general hazards drivers will experience along Buzzard Way. 

Surely any properly considered risk assessment would clearly demonstrate that Buzzard Way represents a greater risk than the existing Anderton Lane route?

While I sincerely hope the routing will be changed in light of the representations being made, it is worth noting that the planning application was supported by a transport study which included the paragraph 'The internal roads within the development will be designed for 20mph design speed, built to adoptable standards and offered for adoption to Devon County Council under a section 38 agreement'. 

The standard of the road construction and the inadequacy of the block paved section speaks for itself — it clearly falls below a standard the council would accept for adoption. 

The delineation between highway, pavement, junctions and crossing points are, I suggest, woefully inadequate.  And, lastly, if the road was designed for 20mph, why is there no indication of this and no traffic calming or similar facility that one usually associates with 20mph zones?  As it stands Buzzard Way presents itself to the motorist as a 30mph zone.  At that level, 150% of its designed limit, I would question whether road safety has even been considered as part of what appears to be a totally ill conceived strategy.

Phil Desmond

Woodpecker Way

Tavistock