Agenda item

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and the process and procedures were explained.

 

The Committee considered Minute No. G87 of the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Environment held on 13th December, 2010 regarding the proposed traffic calming scheme on Flash Lane, Bramley. Also considered was the report that was submitted to the above meeting.

 

Councillor  Turner, supported by Councillors Cutts and Parker, presented the objections to the proposals covering the following issues and views:-

 

-          need to mitigate the situation and meet the requirements of the public

 

-          in the Section 106 agreement the developer had contributed £10,000 towards the provision of a pedestrian crossing

 

-          some residents in sheltered accommodation were reluctant to go out and rather than cross Flash Lane, got on the bus to the terminus and back up Flash Lane to alight at the other side

 

-          £10,000 of the £45,000 calming scheme estimated costs was for the provision of a pedestrian crossing

 

-          arguments for a formal pedestrian crossing were supported by speeding vehicles on Flash Lane, high activity of people and vehicles on Flash Lane at peak hours due to school, supermarket, youth centre and play area increasing the vulnerability and danger

 

-          concordance from the community regarding the need for a formal pedestrian crossing

 

-          costs for formal crossings quoted by engineers excessive compared to own investigation of costings

 

-          sensible acknowledgement of the needs of the community would be reflected in the provision of dropped kerbs, striped crossing, two belisha beacons and two full length speed retarders situated at the beginning of Flash Lane off Bawtry Road and prior to the cemetery

 

-          lack of consultation with the people living off Flash Lane e.g. housing estates using Flash Lane as an access road

 

-          need for an urgent public meeting to determine what was wanted by the community

 

-          LED’s could be solar powered obviating the need for expensive  excavation costs to connect to lamp posts

 

Councillor Smith, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Environment, responded as follows:-

 

-          the Section 106 referred only to a pedestrian crossing not the type of crossing

 

-          there was insufficient monies for a controlled crossing

 

-          speed cushions and a flat top road hump had been proposed but when consulted the public objected and those objections were acceded to

 

-          the appropriate consultation had taken place

 

-          LTP monies were specifically for speed cushions and flat top hump nothing else, so when the cushion proposal was dropped, as a result of the public consultation, the money had to be returned to the LTP

 

-          the Department for Transport criteria for the implementation of a controlled crossing could not be met and indeed fell short of the criteria by a long way

 

-          other options therefore had to be considered leading to the scheme that was consulted on and the resulting amendment to remove cushions and the flat top hump from the scheme

 

The sponsors of the call-in answered, where possible, questions from the Committee covering:-

 

-          why no objection from the sponsors of the call - in to the scheme at the time of the public consultation

 

-          were there any objections from sponsors to the removal of the speed cushions from the scheme

 

-          clarification that the sponsors wanted a controlled rather than an informal crossing

 

-          clarification that the sponsors wanted a public meeting

 

-          what the sponsors expected to achieve from a public meeting bearing in mind the consultation already carried out

 

Councillor Smith, together with an officer, answered, where possible, questions from the Committee covering:-

 

-          costs of a zebra crossing/belisha beacons/LED’s

 

-          extent of the public consultation exercise

 

-          suitability of speed cushions working as a ‘pinch’ point on Flash Lane

 

-          effectiveness of speed cushions

 

-          effectiveness of zebra crossings

 

-          who suggested the Section 106 issue regarding a pedestrian crossing and why

 

-          why had there been a delay in designing the proposed scheme

 

-          cost of the scheme

 

-          was the consultation area too narrow

 

-          consultation process followed

 

-          clarification that proposed calming scheme prepared following discovery that criteria could not be met for the provision of a controlled crossing

 

Councillor Smith answered questions from members of the public covering:-

 

-          criteria for the provision of a controlled crossing

 

-          refusal of the Authority to leaflet drop the Broadlands estate and limited public consultation exercise undertaken

 

At the conclusion of the questioning Councillor Smith left the room and the Committee deliberated.

 

Resolved:- (1) That the call-in request be not supported.

 

(2) That clarification be sought regarding the consultation exercise.

 

(3) That the Regeneration Scrutiny Panel be requested to look at costs and strategies regarding the provision of pedestrian crossings.

 

(Councillor Smith declared a prejudicial interest in the above item and left the room at the conclusion of the questioning and prior to the Committee’s deliberations

 

Councillor Swift declared a personal interest in the above item)