DOCSLIB.ORG

Manual for the Streets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Manual for the Streets Manual for Streets Manual for Streets Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD. www.thomastelford.com Distributors for Thomas Telford books are USA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400, USA Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 3–10 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103 Australia: DA Books and Journals, 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132, Victoria First published 2007 Published for the Department for Transport under licence from the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO, 2007 Copyright in the typographical arrangement and design rests with the Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. This publication (excluding logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for non-commercial research, private study or for circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The copyright of the material must be acknowledged and the title and publisher specified. This publication is value added material and as such is not subject to the Public Sector Information Click-Use Licence System. For any other use of this material apply for a Value Added Click-Use Licence at www.opsi.gov.uk or write to the Licensing Division, Office of Public Sector Information, St Clements House, 2–16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected]. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-7277-3501-0 This book is published on the understanding that the authors are solely responsible for the statements made and opinions expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily imply that such statements and/or opinions are or reflect the views or opinions of the publishers. While every effort has been made to ensure that the statements made and the opinions expressed in this publication provide a safe and accurate guide, no liability or responsibility can be accepted in this respect by the authors or publishers. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Maurice Payne Colourprint Limited using material containing at least 75% recycled fibre. Ordnance Survey mapping All mapping is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Department for Transport 100039241, 2007. Cover image © Countryside Properties. Scheme designed by MDA Contents Foreword 6 Preface 7 Section A 1 Introduction 10 Context and 2 Streets in context 14 process 3 The design process - from policy to implementation 22 Section B 4 Layout and connectivity 40 Design principles 5 Quality places 50 Section C 6 Street users’ needs 62 Detailed design 7 Street geometry 78 issues 8 Parking 98 9 Traffic signs and markings 114 10 Street furniture and street lighting 120 11 Materials, adoption and maintenance 126 Index 138 Acknowledgements Project team Additional consultation and advice Manual for Streets was produced by a team led by consultants Additional consultation took place with the following: WSP, with Llewelyn Davies Yeang (LDY), Phil Jones Associates Mark Ainsworth (George Wimpey), John Barrell (Jacobs Consultancy), (PJA) and TRL Limited on behalf of the Department for Transport, Terry Brown (GMW Architects), Hywel Butts (Welsh Assembly and Communities and Local Government. Government), David Coatham (Institution of Lighting Engineers), Mike Darwin (Leeds City Council), Adrian Lord (Arup / The core team comprised (all lists in alphabetical order): Cycling England), Kevin Pearson (Avon Fire & Rescue Service), • Annabel Bradbury (TRL) Michael Powis (Nottinghamshire Police), Gary Kemp (Disabled • Andrew Cameron (WSP) Persons Transport Advisory Committee), Malcolm Lister • Ben Castell (LDY) (London Borough of Hounslow) • Phil Jones (PJA) • Tim Pharoah (LDY), In addition to those already listed, substantial comments • Stuart Reid (TRL) on drafts of the manual were received from: • Alan Young – Project Manager, (WSP) Duncan Barratt (West Sussex County Council), Neil Benison (Warwickshire County Council), Daniel Black (Sustrans), With additional research and assistance by: Rob Carmen (Medway Council), Greg Devine Sam Carman (WSP), Tom Ewings (TRL), Una McGaughrin (LDY) (Surrey County Council), John Emslie (MVA Consultancy), Peter O’Brien (LDY), Ross Paradise (TRL), Christianne Strubbe Heather Evans (Cyclists’ Touring Club), David Groves (Cornwall (Hampshire County Council), Iain York (TRL) County Council), Steve Mead (Derbyshire County Council), Christine Robinson (Essex County Council), Mick Sankus Graphic design by Llewelyn Davies Yeang (Ros Shakibi, (Medway Council), Mike Schneider (North Somerset Borough Ting LamTang and Thanh Tung Uong, with artwork Council), Graham Paul Smith (Oxford Brookes University), by Alexandra Steed) and overseen by Fiona Webb (Mid Bedfordshire District Council), Bob White Ela Ginalska (Department for Transport) (Kent County Council) Steering group Case studies The Project Steering Group included: A number of case studies were investigated in the compilation Bob Bennett (Planning Officers Society), Edward Chorlton if the Manual. These are listed below, along with the (Devon County Council), Vince Christie (Local Government individuals who provided assistance: Association), Wayne Duerden (Department for Transport) • Beaulieu Park, Chelmsford: Louise Duggan (Commission for Architecture and the Built Sarah Hill-Sanders, Chelmsford Borough Council Environment), Ray Farrow (Home Builders’ Federation) Chris Robinson, Essex County Council George Hazel (Urban Design Alliance), Ed Hobson (Commission for • Charlton Down, Dorset: Architecture and the Built Environment), Gereint Killa Stephen Hardy, Dorset County Council (Department for Transport), Grahame Lawson (Disabled Persons Ian Madgwick, Dorset County Council Transport Advisory Committee), Spencer Palmer (Department for • Crown Street, Glasgow: Transport), John Smart (Institution of Highways and Transportation), Elaine Murray, Glasgow City Council Larry Townsend (Communities and Local Government), Mic Ralph, Glasgow City Council Polly Turton (Commission for Architecture and the Built Stephen Rigg, CZWG Architects Environment), David Williams (Department for Transport), • Darwin Park, Lichfield: Mario Wolf (Communities and Local Government), Steve Clarke, Staffordshire County Council Philip Wright (Health & Safety Executive) Ian Thompson, Lichfield District Council • Hulme, Manchester: Sounding board Kevin Gillham, Manchester City Council Further advice was received from an invited Sounding Board Brian Kerridge, Manchester City Council consisting of: • Limehouse Fields, Tower Hamlets: Tony Aston (Guide Dogs for the Blind Association), David Balcombe Angelina Eke, Tower Hamlets Borough Council (Essex County Council), Peter Barker (Guide Dogs for the Blind John Hilder, Tower Hamlets Borough Council Association), Richard Button (Colchester Borough Council) • New Hall, Harlow: Jo Cleary (Friends of the Lake District), Meredith Evans (Borough of Alex Cochrane, Roger Evans Associates Telford & Wrekin Council), Tom Franklin (Living Streets), Keith Lawson, Essex County Council Jenny Frew (English Heritage), Stephen Hardy (Dorset County Mriganka Saxena, Roger Evans Associates Council), Richard Hebditch (Living Streets), Ian Howes (Colchester • Pirelli site, Eastleigh: Borough Council), Andrew Linfoot (Halcrow), Peter Lipman Dave Francis, Eastleigh Borough Council (Sustrans), Ciaran McKeon (Dublin Transport Office), Elizabeth Moon, Eric Reed, Eastleigh Borough Council (Essex County Council), Nelia Parmaklieva (Colchester Borough • Queen Elizabeth Park, Guildford: Council), Mark Sackett (RPS), Paul Sheard (Leicestershire David Barton, Guildford Borough Council County Council), Alex Sully (Cycling England), Carol Thomas David Taylor, Surrey County Council (Guide Dogs for the Blind Association), Andy Yeomanson • Staithes South Bank, Gateshead: (Leicestershire County Council), Emily Walsh (Solihull Metropolitan Alastair Andrew, Gateshead Council Borough Council), Leon Yates (London Borough of Lewisham) Andy Szandrowski, Gateshead Council Manual for Streets Status and application Manual for Streets (MfS) supersedes Design MfS does not apply to the trunk road network. Bulletin 32 and its companion guide Places, The design requirements for trunk roads are Streets and Movement, which are now set out in the Design Manual for Roads and withdrawn in England and Wales. It complements Bridges (DMRB). Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing and Planning Policy Wales. MfS comprises technical MfS only applies formally in England and Wales. guidance and does not set out any new policy or legal requirements. The policy, legal and technical frameworks are generally the same in England and Wales, MfS focuses on lightly-trafficked residential but where differences exist these are made clear. streets, but many of its key principles may be applicable to other types of street, for example high streets and lightly-trafficked lanes in rural areas. It is the responsibility of users of MfS to ensure that its application to the design of streets not specifically covered is appropriate. Manual for Streets Foreword Streets are the arteries of our communities – network, well defined public and private spaces, a community’s success can depend on how well and streets that can be
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transport and Map Symbols Range: 1F680–1F6FF
    Transport and Map Symbols Range: 1F680–1F6FF This file contains an excerpt from the character code tables and list of character names for The Unicode Standard, Version 14.0 This file may be changed at any time without notice to reflect errata or other updates to the Unicode Standard. See https://www.unicode.org/errata/ for an up-to-date list of errata. See https://www.unicode.org/charts/ for access to a complete list of the latest character code charts. See https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-14.0/ for charts showing only the characters added in Unicode 14.0. See https://www.unicode.org/Public/14.0.0/charts/ for a complete archived file of character code charts for Unicode 14.0. Disclaimer These charts are provided as the online reference to the character contents of the Unicode Standard, Version 14.0 but do not provide all the information needed to fully support individual scripts using the Unicode Standard. For a complete understanding of the use of the characters contained in this file, please consult the appropriate sections of The Unicode Standard, Version 14.0, online at https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/, as well as Unicode Standard Annexes #9, #11, #14, #15, #24, #29, #31, #34, #38, #41, #42, #44, #45, and #50, the other Unicode Technical Reports and Standards, and the Unicode Character Database, which are available online. See https://www.unicode.org/ucd/ and https://www.unicode.org/reports/ A thorough understanding of the information contained in these additional sources is required for a successful implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Definition of Footpath and Road Margin
    Meanings of “footpath” and “road margin” in Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 The RURs provide the following definitions 1.6 Interpretation: footpath means a path or way principally designed for, and used by, pedestrians; and ​ includes a footbridge road margin includes any uncultivated margin of a road adjacent to but not forming part of ​ ​ ​ either the roadway or the footpath (if any) The definition of “footpath” encompasses the road space that is principally designed for and used by pedestrians. There is nothing in any of the rules that reference footpath that limits this to paved areas of the pedestrian space. The definition of “road margin” excludes any part of the footpath. The term is only used in RUR 6.2, 11.14 and 11.15. Both 11.14 and 11.15 refer to riders of horses. 11.14 requires horse riders to “when a reasonably adequate road margin is available, keep the animal on ​ the road margin as far as practicable”, but prohibits riding “along a footpath, or on any lawn, ​ ​ garden, or other cultivation adjacent to or forming part of a road”. These words suggest that ​ road margins do not exist on all roads. It appears that the term “road margin” only refers to ​ ​ areas set aside and formed for parking or stopping off the roadway References to “footpath” and “road margin” in other legislation Both terms appear with the same definitions in related legislation: the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999 (in a schedule of penalties for breaching rules in the RUR, and the Traffic Regulations 1976 (largely revoked and Replaced by the RUR).
    [Show full text]
  • The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Risk Landscape in UK Public Policy Discussion Paper [Or Working Paper, Etc.]
    Patrick Dunleavy, Christopher Gilson, Simon Bastow and Jane Tinkler The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the risk landscape in UK Public Policy Discussion paper [or working paper, etc.] Original citation: Dunleavy, Patrick, Christopher Gilson, Simon Bastow and Jane Tinkler (2009): The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the risk landscape in UK public policy. URN 09/1423. The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council, London, UK. This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25785/ Originally available from LSE Public Policy Group Available in LSE Research Online: November 2009 © 2009 the authors LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Risk Landscape in UK Public Policy Patrick Dunleavy, Christopher Gilson, Simon Bastow and Jane Tinkler October 2009 The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council This report was produced in July 2009 for the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council. The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council is an independent advisory group which aims to improve the understanding of public risk and how to respond to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Access Pricing in the Water Sector a Discussion Paper
    Water today, water tomorrow Future access pricing in the water sector A discussion paper www.ofwat.gov.uk Future access pricing in the water sector 2 Water today, water tomorrow About this document This document introduces some of the terminology, concepts and issues we will need to consider in developing a new charging rules framework for access pricing for the water sector in England and Wales. It describes: • what access pricing is and why it matters; • some of the key issues we will need to consider around access pricing; • which costs could be considered in setting access prices; and • the lessons that we can learn from other sectors. The UK Government’s Water Bill, published in June 2013, will extend the role of competition in the sector in England. This will mean new companies will have access to the systems and services provided by monopoly water and sewerage and water only companies. The Water Bill also requires us to prepare rules that monopoly companies will need to follow in setting the prices they will charge for providing access. Contents 1. Why does access pricing matter? 4 2. What are the main issues? 8 3. Which costs should we consider? 12 4. What lessons can we learn from other sectors? 15 5. Next steps 26 6. Further information 27 3 Future access pricing in the water sector 1. Why does access pricing matter? Most people in England and And in June 2013, the UK Together these reforms will Wales receive their water Government published draft encourage: services from one of 19 licensed legislation (the Water Bill) to regional monopoly companies achieve this vision.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Assessment
    Title: Impact Assessment (IA) Raising the speed limit for HGVs >7.5T on dual carriageway roads IA No: DfT00280 Date: 23/09/2014 Lead department or agency: Stage: Final Department for Transport Source of intervention: Domestic Other departments or agencies: Type of measure: Primary legislation None Contact for enquiries: [email protected] Summary: Intervention and Options RPC Opinion: EANCB Validated Cost of Preferred (or more likely) Option Total Net Present Business Net Net cost to business per In scope of One-In, Measure qualifies as Value Present Value year (EANCB on 2009 prices) Two-Out? £0m £0m £0m Yes Zero net cost What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary? On dual carriageways the speed limit for HGVs>7.5T is 50 mph. The average actual speed at which these HGVs travel in free flow conditions (when they are not held up by other traffic or obstructions such as junctions, hills or bends) is about 53 mph (excludes rigid 2 axle HGVs)1. More than 80% of HGVs exceed 50 mph in free-flow conditions. The limit is out of date and systematically ignored by professional HGV drivers. The proposal is to raise the speed limit on dual carriageway roads for these vehicles to 60mph, which would better reflect the capabilities of modern HGVs. Government intervention is necessary because speed is regulated by government, through speed limits, in order to balance the private benefits of speed of travel with the social costs and risks (such as related to safety) of high speeds. What are the policy objectives and the intended effects? The intention is to modernise the speed limit, improve compliance, make the limit more credible and legitimise the behaviour of professional drivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Home Office Preparedness for COVID-19 (Coronavirus): Management of the Borders: Government Response to the Committee’S Fifth Report
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Home Office preparedness for COVID-19 (coronavirus): management of the borders: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report Sixth Special Report of Session 2019–21 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 11 November 2020 HC 974 Published on 13 November 2020 by authority of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Yvette Cooper MP (Labour, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) Chair Diane Abbott MP (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington) Dehenna Davison MP (Conservative, Bishop Auckland) Ruth Edwards MP (Conservative, Rushcliffe) Laura Farris MP (Conservative, Newbury) Simon Fell MP (Conservative, Barrow and Furness) Andrew Gwynne MP (Labour, Denton and Reddish) Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Dame Diana Johnson MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North) Tim Loughton MP (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham) Stuart C McDonald MP (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020. This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright-parliament/. Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom and in print by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Truly Spectacular!
    Directions to Western Park Entrance Directions to Eastern Park Entrance Hiking Paths Observation Decks Sussex WESTERN PARK ENTRANCE Sussex Corner Fundy Trail All trail distances are one-way unless indicated with an * Accessible off trails within the parkway - may require a Parkway Easy Moderate Strenuous short hike Waterford St. Martins Hearst Lodge A Multi-Use Trail 10 km 1 Flowerpot Rock – 1 9 Sluiceway Observation Deck Alma Harbour 39 km Opening B Sea Captains’ Burial Ground Footpath 0.34 km 2 Flowerpot Rock – 2 10 Suspension Footbridge Sea Caves 2021 7 km H C Flowerpot Rock Scenic Footpath 1.5 km 3 Flowerpot Rock – 3 Observation Deck P9 I D 11 Interpretive Centre Bradshaw Scenic Footpath 0.6 km 4 Fuller Falls EASTERN PARK ENTRANCE Observation Deck E Pioneer Trail Loop * 0.48 km Observation Deck Fundy Trail Parkway 12 Tufts’ Plateau F Big Salmon River Loop * 1.2 km 5 Lighthouse Map Legend Lookouts Beaches G Suspension Footbridge Trail 0.39 km 13 Long Beach Observation Deck Easily accessed by driving James Catt Observation Deck 0 Beach 1 Melvin Beach L H 14 McCumber Brook 4 the parkway Monument 7 10 Hearst Lodge Scenic Footpath 2.7 km 6 Isle Haute EASTERN PARK Electric Vehicle Charge Station 2 Pangburn Beach I Cranberry Brook Loop * 4.8 km Observation Deck 1 1 Fox Rock Lookout Mitchell Franklin Bridge Observation Deck ENTRANCE S F Fundy Trail Parkway - 30 km 3 Big Salmon River Beach Suspension 6 J Big Salmon to Long Beach Footpath 4.4 km 15 McCumber Brook 2 Fownes Head Lookout 7 Waterfowl ROUTE TO (cars, buses, motorcycles) 4 Long Beach
    [Show full text]
  • Roundabouts Applying the 'System'
    Roundabouts Applying the 'System' to Roundabouts Let us suppose that you are on a dual carriageway approaching a roundabout (400m away). You are currently in the left lane and you intend to turn right at the roundabout. Information: - Take - You see the roundabout and its triangular warning signs in the distance. There are no vehicles between you and the roundabout but you see vehicles on the roundabout. Mirror check. There are two vehicles behind, both in the left lane. - Use - You know that you have to change to the right lane and that you will need to signal to change lane and then to signal continuously on the approach and through the roundabout (the standard Highway Code procedure for turning right at a roundabout)- Give - After checking your mirrors you signal right to the vehicles behind. Position: The right signal remains on for a few seconds and then gradually you move to the right hand lane (Information-Use/Give). When the manoeuver is complete you cancel the signal. After a few more seconds the right signal is re-applied to confirm to the drivers behind that you intend to turn right at the roundabout. Information: The speed and position of the vehicles behind are monitored as you approach the roundabout. An assessment is made of the movement of vehicles on the roundabout and those approaching it from the right and left. You look over the roundabout to see, if possible, vehicles approaching it from the opposite direction (Information-Take). Speed: As you approach the roundabout you begin to brake and lose speed smoothly and progressively (Information-Give).
    [Show full text]
  • GD 368 Infrastructure Requirements for Emergency Access and Egress from Motorway and All-Purpose Trunk Roads
    Design Manual for Roads and Bridges General Principles and Scheme Governance Design GD 368 Infrastructure requirements for emergency access and egress from motorway and all-purpose trunk roads (formerly IAN 68/05) Revision 0 Summary This document contains the infrastructure requirements for emergency access and egress from motorway and all-purpose trunk roads. Application by Overseeing Organisations Any specific requirements for Overseeing Organisations alternative or supplementary to those given in this document are given in National Application Annexes to this document. Feedback and Enquiries Users of this document are encouraged to raise any enquiries and/or provide feedback on the content and usage of this document to the dedicated Highways England team. The email address for all enquiries and feedback is: [email protected] This is a controlled document. GD 368 Revision 0 Contents Contents Release notes 2 Foreword 3 Publishing information ................................................ 3 Contractual and legal considerations ........................................ 3 Introduction 4 Background ...................................................... 4 Assumptions made in the preparation of this document ............................. 4 1. Scope 5 Aspects covered ................................................... 5 Implementation ................................................... 5 Use of GG 101 .................................................... 5 2. Normative references 6 1 GD 368 Revision 0 Release notes Release notes Version Date Details of amendments 0 Mar 2020 GD 368 replaces IAN 68/05. This full document has been re-written to make it compliant with the new Highways England drafting rules. 2 GD 368 Revision 0 Foreword Foreword Publishing information This document is published by Highways England. This document supersedes IAN 68/05, which is withdrawn. Contractual and legal considerations This document forms part of the works specification. It does not purport to include all the necessary provisions of a contract.
    [Show full text]
  • Type 1 Single Carriageway Pavement Detail A
    A1 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P DESIGN REPORT 1 Notes: 1. This Drawing is only to be used for the Design Element identified in the title box. All other information shown on the drawing is to be considered indicative only. 2. These drawings are to be read in conjunction with all other relevant design drawings. 3. All dimensions are in (m) & are typical dimensions which are subject to requirements for visibility & curve widening. 2 3 3.00(MIN.) VARIES 3.00 2.50 7.30 2.50 3.00 VARIES VARIES 3.00 (MIN) VERGE HARD CARRIAGEWAY HARD VERGE SHOULDER 3.65 3.65 SHOULDER TRAFFIC TRAFFIC 1.00 LANE LANE FENCE LINE ROUNDING 0.50 VERGE LINE CONCRETE CHANNEL 1.00 1.00 CUT LINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FENCE LINE 4 1.00 RCD/500/22 ROUNDING ROUNDING 0.10 TOPSOIL ROUNDING NORMAL CROSS NORMAL CROSS 0.50 0.50 FALL FALL TOE OF 1 5% VERGE LINE EMBANKMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS 3 ON EARTHWORKS, 1 1 1 1 SEALED CARRIER DRAIN 5 5 5 5 REFER TO THE A EARTHWORKS SERIES 600 CUT CONDITION FILL CONDITION 1 0.10 TOPSOIL 0.75 3 VARIES FIN OR NARROW FOR FURTHER DETAILS FILTER DRAIN ON ROAD EDGE DRAINAGE TYPES, (WHERE REQUIRED) FOR FURTHER DETAILS REFER TO THE DRAINAGE SERIES 500 5 ON EARTHWORKS, REFER TO THE VARIES EARTHWORKS SERIES 600 UNLINED INTERCEPTOR DRAIN WHERE REQUIRED TYPE 1 SINGLE CARRIAGEWAY SCALE 1:100 (A1) 6 7 PAVEMENT DETAIL A Type A: N6 Type Single Carriageway.
    [Show full text]
  • Home Office the Response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Investigation Into a Complaint by Mrs a and Her Family About the Home Office
    Home Office The response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigation into a complaint by Mrs A and her family about the Home Office January 2015 Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 2 Foreword by the Permanent Secretary .................................................................................... 4 Executive summary ................................................................................................................. 5 Summary of recommendations ................................................................................................ 6 Background to the PHSO Report ............................................................................................. 9 Current Home Office structure ........................................................................................... 10 The PHSO Report .............................................................................................................. 10 Section 1: PHSO Recommendation 1 .................................................................................... 13 Overview of Section 1 ........................................................................................................ 13 The visa issuing process – self declaration and criminal history ........................................ 13 Procedures when a criminal record is declared .................................................................. 13
    [Show full text]
  • OCC Legal Statement Changes Post
    Changes to the Definitive Map & Statement of Public Rights of Way since 21st February 2006 Date Parish/Path Description Width Conditions & Remarks Number Limitations Abingdon Footpath 27 From North Avenue at Grid Reference SU 5029 9893 The Order confirmed Added by Modification Order 07/03/2006 100/27 between property numbers 13 and 15, 7.3.2006 provided a width confirmed 7.3.2006. south-south-westwards for approximately 133 metres 2.5 metres (min) along a strip of Common Land (Registration Number CL153), connecting with the western end of Mandeville Close at Grid Reference SU 5028 9882, to South Avenue at Grid Reference SU 5027 9880. Abingdon Footpath 28 From Colwell Drive at SU 4852 9717 leading generally 2m between SU 4852 1) Northern section added 19/02/2015 100/28 ENE for approx. 54m to SU 4857 9719, then NNW for 9717 and SU 4857 9719. by HA1980 S.38 Agreement approx. 51m and ESE to Willow Brook at SU 4856 9724.] 27.09.2001; came into effect 08.11.2004. 2) Western section added by HA1980 S.38 & 278 Agreement 15.08.2008; came into effect 23.12.2013. Abingdon Footpath 29 From the W end of Caldecott Chase at SU 49017 96473, 2 m. Added by HA1980 S.38 19/02/2015 100/29 leading N & W for approximately 22 m to Caldecott Road Agreement 05.06.2009; at SU 49007 96486. came into effect 06.01.2014. Abingdon Footpath 30 From Caldecott Chase at SU 49106 96470, leading N & E 2 m. Added by HA1980 S.38 19/02/2015 100/30 for approximately 26 m to SU 49109 96490.
    [Show full text]