Meeting documents
Executive (I)
Friday, 1st November, 2013
| REPORT TO: | 84 |
| DECISION NUMBER: | PH/114/2013 |
| EARLIEST DATE FOR DECISION: | 1st November 2013 |
FOUR LANE ENDS PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (CYCLE SAFETY FUND) | |
| Matter for Consideration: The objection to the provision of zebra crossings at Four Lane Ends roundabout. | |
| Information: Earlier this year, the Council successfully bid for funding through the Department for Transport to carry out a number of small alterations to the highway to assist cyclists. Three specific locations were highlighted as causing particular difficulties for cyclists to negotiate. These are: • Four Lane Ends Roundabout – Newton Drive junction with St. Walburgas Road • Grange Road Roundabout – junction with St. Walburgas Road • Plymouth Road Bridge These locations form part of a key north-south route for cyclists. With regards to the Four Lane Ends Roundabout, it was considered that an off-road facility which catered for both pedestrians and cyclists would provide the most benefit in assisting the road users to travel through this busy junction. It is proposed that new zebra crossing facilities with parallel cycle crossings will be installed on both sides of Newton Drive and St. Walburgas Road arms of the roundabout. The crossings have been designed to try and minimise the impact upon traffic flows through the junction. The resident at 240 Newton Drive has objected on the following points: A) my drive access directly crosses this cycle path that is on a blind bend. This would make it impossible for a vehicle to get out safely without the potential of hitting a cyclist due to the blind spots on the corner of my boundary. Currently the only obstacle would be a pedestrian, which is managed as a pedestrian travels significantly slower than a cyclist, allowing for manoeuvre. B) the cycle path runs straight across the front of my boundary, on a blind corner. Should I set out onto the pavement, there is a considerable risk that I, or especially my elderly mother, who is much slower on her feet, will be knocked over and injured by a cyclist. C) zig-zags are proposed to be painted across the front of my house, in order for us to open the gates it is necessary to station a vehicle on this area. Should the proposals go ahead this will severely affect the ability to be in a position to do this. D) when choosing to purchase this house there were no plans submitted for this proposed alteration and especially the destruction of the grass verges outside. This would significantly have altered my view on this location and I believe as a result the value and desirability of the property would greatly reduce. E) light from the flashing beacon on the zebra crossing will cause significant nuisance to the area and on house windows when resting. Council officers have responded to the resident with the following response: In terms of the comments raised in items A and B, as indicated the footway cycle access does already exist and has been in place for a number of years and the Council is not aware of any incidents involving conflict between pedestrians and cyclists at this location. The alterations are aimed at making it easier for both pedestrians and cyclists to cross the carriageways in this area and it is intended that additional shared cycleway/footway signage applied to the existing routes will improve the awareness of users. In relation to the location of your access (point C), it is appreciated that there will be some affect on the ability to stop directly outside your property, however, the Four Lane Ends roundabout is a major traffic junction and the Highway Authority must respond to the needs of users which may include the need to control the stopping of vehicles on the highway to facilitate safe stopping sight distances to both the roundabout give-ways and to pedestrian crossings. The zebra crossings have been designed with the recommended control zone on the approaches in the form of zig-zag road markings. D) In order to install the proposals, a number of small areas will require the grass verge to be removed and replaced with a suitable surface for pedestrians and/or cyclists, however, we are sympathetic to the desire to retain as much of the grass verges as possible and will minimise this. I am unable to comment on the affect of value and desirability of property. E) The beacons used on zebra crossings can be installed with hoods which direct the light along the road and minimise the amount of light which spills outside of the highway area, therefore this should not cause a nuisance to residents in the area. The Legal Considerations section of this report sets out the general duty to have regard to certain material factors when the Council exercises functions under the legislation. | |
| Does the information submitted include any exempt information? | NO |
| Legal Considerations: The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997.Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (particularly s23 and 122). Section 122 provides that it is the duty of an authority to exercise its functions (so far as practicable having regard to the matters set out subsequently) to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic (vehicles and pedestrians) and adequate parking facilities. Regard has to be made to various matters including (i)the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises, (ii)the effect on the amenities of any locality and (without prejudice to the generality of that) the importance of regulating and restricting the use of roads by heavy commercial vehicles, so as to preserve or improve the amenities of the area, (iii)the importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and the safety of and convenience of those using or desiring to use such vehicles, (iv) national air quality strategy, and (v) any other matters appearing to be relevant. | |
| Personnel Considerations: None | |
| Financial Considerations: None | |
| Performance Management Considerations: None | |
| Risk Management Considerations: The proposals should improve pedestrian and cycle safety at the junction. | |
| Relevant Officer: Peter Cross, Head of Transportation | |
| Relevant Cabinet Member: Councillor J. Jones | |
| Consultation Undertaken: Letters have been sent to all affected residents and to statutory consultees. | |
| Background Papers: None | |
| Is this a key decision? | NO |
| Is the decision required in less than 5 days? | NO |
| Recommendations: To consider the representation made by a member of the public and the responses made by officers and decide if the scheme should continue. | |
| Reasons for Recommendations: To enable the scheme to progress. | |
| Is the recommendation contrary to a plan or strategy adopted or approved by the Council? | NO |
| Is the recommendation in accordance with the Council’s approved Budget? | YES |
| Other alternative options to be considered: | |
| Policy, Overview, and Scrutiny Committee Chairman (where appropriate) Date Informed: N/A Date Approved: N/A | |
| DECLARATION(S) OF INTEREST (if applicable) None | |
| Decision: The Cabinet Member resolved as follows: To proceed with the crossings as originally proposed | |
| Date: | 1st November 2013 |
| Reason for Decision: Having considered the proposal and the representations the Cabinet Member is still satisfied that the proposal remains necessary. | |
Date of Publication: | 1st November 2013 |
[ ]
