4 abc Public report
Report to Cabinet 6 November 2007
Report of Director of City Development
Title Petition - Objection to Highway Works on Hearsall Common
1 Purpose of the Report 1.1 The purpose of this report is to detail concerns that have been raised within a petition against the implementation of PrimeLines, adjacent to and within part of the area known as Hearsall Common. The report will also explain how it is proposed the scheme will be amended to take into consideration the concerns raised by the petition and to seek Cabinet guidance as to whether the scheme in its amended form should progress 1.2 Should Cabinet decide to agree to progress with the scheme in its amended form approval is also sought to dedicate a small part of the existing open space as Highway to enable the road works to proceed and for the making of the appropriate Traffic Orders to provide the bus lanes. 1.3 The proposed road works are in Whoberley Ward.
2 Recommendations 2.1 Cabinet is asked to consider the petition objecting to any proposals to carryout any road works on the area known as Hearsall Common and whether to proceed with Phase 1 of the amended Hearsall Common scheme as outlined in Para 4.2.1. and shown on Figure 2
2.2 Cabinet is recommended to defer a decision on Phase 2 (which is described in Para 4.2.2 and shown on Figure 2) in order to allow officers to reconsider whether this element of the scheme can be amended to allay the concerns detailed within the petition and until the outcome of the Village Green application is known.
2.3 Should Cabinet decide to proceed with Phase 1, Cabinet is asked to; a) Approve under S.96(1)(b) of the West Midlands County Council Act 1980 the dedication of the area of land, as shown in Figure 1 for Highway purposes
b) Instruct the Director of Finance & Legal Services to make the City of Coventry (Hearsall Common – Section 2) (Bus Lane) Order 2007 & City of Coventry (Hearsall Common – Section 3) (Bus Lane) Order 2007 as shown on Figure 2
3 Information/Background 3.1 PrimeLines is a comprehensive £45m, four year project designed to create a sea change in the image and provision of public transport across the City. It is a partnership between the City Council, Centro and the public transport operators to enhance bus journey reliability and travel times, improve passenger information and to generally enhance the quality of service for current and potential new passengers. The project not only looks at bus lanes and priority at traffic signals, but includes other measures, the aim of which is to improve and control the travel time and reliability of buses for around a third of the population of the City who rely on the bus as their primary way of travel. In addition by providing a better, cleaner, reliable service for the existing users, such improvements may also encourage car users to switch to public transport as a practical alternative.
3.2 The Hearsall Common proposals are an important element of the scheme. Some 11 separate bus services converge at this point that serve not only those getting to the University, but also to the City Centre, Hospital, Cannon Park Shopping Centre and the railway station from Tile Hill, Eastern Green and Canley. The proposed bus priority works along Hearsall Common and Tile Hill Lane completes the sections already undertaken as part of the original Binley Road /Tile Hill Lane scheme as well as continuing the works currently being undertaken on the University Corridor on Kirby Corner Road and Sir Henry Parkes Road.
3.3 Hearsall Common is designated Open Space. However, statutory powers exist that permit a widening of the road even if it requires taking part of the open space, should it be deemed necessary to enable the scheme to proceed. It should be noted that this statutory provision does not create a precedent to allow general development of the open space.
3.4 A petition containing some 1928 signatures has been received which objects to the whole proposal on the grounds of its impact upon Hearsall Common. An application has also been submitted to designate the southern element of Hearsall Common as a village green. As a consequence of these actions the previous scheme has been revised into a two phase approach, the details of which are explained later within the report
4 Proposal and Other Option(s) to be considered 4.1 The Hearsall Common proposals form part of the bus priority measures between the A45 and the City Centre. The proposals for Herald Avenue between Broad Lane and the A45, are currently under construction and do not affect the Open Space sections of Hearsall Common.
4.2 The scheme is now proposed as two separate phases (a location plan can be seen in Figure 2);
4.2.1 Phase 1: An inbound section on Tile Hill Lane/ Hearsall Common between Herald Avenue and Hearsall Lane, this includes a new formal pedestrian crossing across Tile Hill Lane;
An outbound bus lane to create a bypass on the south side of the Broad Lane/ Tile Hill Lane junction;
4.2.2 Phase 2: This consists of a section of bus lane that runs across part of Hearsall Common parallel to Earlsdon Avenue North, from Broomfield Road to Hearsall Lane. This section is the subject of a Village Green application. Given that Phase 2 will be dependent upon the outcome of the Village Green application and appears to be the
2 main focus of the petition it is considered that this element of the overall proposal should be reconsidered for alternatives and then represented to Cabinet for consideration at a later date.
4.3 In order to proceed with the bus lane in Phase 1 it will be necessary to widen a section of the road by about 4.3m for a length of approximately 230m. This area is adjacent to the Highway, but segregated from the rest of the open space by an earth barrier and is essentially a 4-5m grass strip that forms part of the verge beside the existing footway. Phase 1 will require some 0.09hectare, (943m2) [0.2acres] to be dedicated as Highway. The area that would need to be dedicated as Highway for this element of the scheme is shown on Figure 1.
5 PrimeLines Consultation 5.1 The petition that has been received is in addition to the results of extensive consultation undertaken as part of the scheme, which saw the circulation of some 3,000 Newsletters to the areas adjacent to the proposals along with press releases issued concerning the proposals and an invitation to the consultation event. Some 100 visitors attended the consultation event, undertaken over a 3 day period, with 76 comments being received. Details of the comments received are detailed within Appendix 1
5.2 In summary some 29 people responded positively to the scheme in its entirety, whilst 32 where against the whole scheme. However it should be noted that 31 respondents did not object to the inbound section of the scheme, but to the Earlsdon Avenue North proposals.
5.3 In addition to the consultation process the formal serving of the Traffic Regulation Orders has resulted in a written objection to the inbound length of bus lane being received. The objector is concerned about the proposed bus lanes and bus gates increasing traffic hold- ups and that the bus priority measures introduced across the City are creating congestion and ruining the reputation of the City where business cannot move around the city.
5.4 Justification for the Works
5.5 The traffic surveys undertaken indicate that the Queensland Avenue/ Hearsall Lane/ Earlsdon Avenue North/ Hearsall Common junction is close to capacity and will therefore require significant work to enable journey time through the junction to be improved.
5.6 Surveys have been carried out, which shows that at peak time the queues in the inbound direction across Hearsall Common stretch up to Herald Avenue some 900m. This takes it past the Broad Lane junction.
5.7 Some 11 bus services use the road across Hearsall Common. Between 7:30am and 9:30am they carry some 2500 passengers. This is the equivalent of some 1900 extra cars. The major bus operator reports that, during the summer recess, some 10,300 passengers are carried daily across Hearsall Common, rising to 13,600 passengers during term time. To put that into context during the day some 22,700 vehicles pass over the Common (Traffic survey - Wed 21 June 2006), therefore nearly 1/3 of the trips across Hearsall Common are made by bus.
5.8 The reliability of the bus services using Hearsall Common has been monitored and in general, reliability at peak time is poor. At peak times less than 50% of the buses are on time, with this dropping to 25% during the off peak period.
3 6 Discussion
6.1 The petitioners are concerned that the proposals adversely affect the open space and will lead to development of the 'Open Space', however, except for the caveat which allows for improvements to the Highway through Section 56 of the West Midlands County Council Act 1980 this does not open up the rest of the 'Open Space' for general development.
6.2 Phase 2 of the scheme will be considered again by officers to ascertain whether it can be achieved with less impact upon the Common. Dependent upon the outcome of the Green application the reconsidered proposal will be referred back to Cabinet for consideration.
6.3 Phase 1 of the scheme does not reduce the number of lanes or take road space from the existing road lanes to create the bus lane. It uses the existing road width and a small strip of Hearsall Common. The area of the open space required will come from the grass strip that runs between the existing footway and the earth mound barrier, which both run parallel to the road. Since the road is being widened to create the extra lane the impact on the capacity of the existing road will not be affected and will have the least physical impact on the Common. This narrow strip has a small (limited) leisure use, but removing buses from the queue will enable bus reliability be controlled and provide a significant improvement for the 10,000 –13,000 bus passengers going to and from the west of the City.
6.4 The objector to the bus lane has also raised the poor performance of another bus gate and the impact on traffic. Although the poor performance of this bus gate at the Butts is noted this is an entirely separate consideration to this scheme. Many of the lessons learnt from this previous scheme will be incorporated into the proposed bus gate for Hearsall Common.
6.5 The consultation showed that many of the respondees accepted that the inbound bus lane would be beneficial and accepted the mimimal loss of the green verge. In addition it would appear that the main emphasise of the petition also is concerned with the outward route which it is now proposed should be deferred for further consideration.
6.6 As this is an important focus for bus routes the improvements offered by Phase 1 alone will provide a benefit to a significant proportion of trips over Hearsall Common. Although no proposals are possible at the Hearsall Lane/ Earlsdon Avenue North junction, the bus will be put to the front of the queue and therefore have priority through the junction, again helping to regulate the journey time.
6.7 To do nothing would leave the issue of bus reliability unresolved. The buses and their passengers would continue to be caught up in the queues and without the segregation provided by the bus lane the journeys will continue to be unreliable. It is likely that traffic growth will continue to rise and therefore poor bus reliability will increase.
7 Other specific implications
Implications No
(See below) Implications Best Value Children and Young People Climate Change & Sustainable Development Comparable Benchmark Data
4 Implications No
(See below) Implications Corporate Parenting Coventry Community Plan Crime and Disorder Equal Opportunities Finance Health and Safety Human Resources Human Rights Act Impact on Partner Organisations Information and Communications Technology Legal Implications Neighbourhood Management Property Implications Race Equality Scheme Risk Management Trade Union Consultation Voluntary Sector – The Coventry Compact
7.1 Neighbourhood Management
The proposals will provide improved bus services into some of the Priority Neighbourhoods in the city. There are no direct implications to the Neighbourhood Management service. They will however be kept informed of the proposal affecting their areas and they welcome and will provide support to the approach to consultation outlined.
7.2 Best Value
In preparing the bid to Government, a detailed economic, financial and environmental assessment of the scheme had to be undertaken.
The overall economic assessment of the scheme was that it would provide a Benefit Cost ratio (BCR) in net present value terms of 1.28.
The assessments identified a general improvement in environmental conditions as increased bus usage reduced vehicle emissions. Accident savings amounted to a reduction of 120 accidents over the 30-year period of the assessment.
The scheme would also be programmed to integrate with a number of Corridor enhancement programmes.
5 7.3 Climate Change and Sustainable Development
The PrimeLines Bus project seeks to improve public transport to key destinations in a manner, which reduces congestion and provides better accessibility for all people. The proposal will improve the quality and reliability of the existing bus routes, thereby helping to make public transport more attractive. Improvements to public transport will therefore provide a sustainable alternative to the private car.
7.4 Coventry Community Plan
The PrimeLines project impacts on:-
Transport: To achieve easier, safer, sustainable and more accessible transport for everyone. Environment: To provide cleaner safer and greener neighbourhoods and public spaces
7.5 Finance
The Cabinet report of 28 November 2006 (PrimeLines Progress Report) identified a number of funding streams for the whole of the PrimeLines Projects. In this case the costs of implementation of these proposals will be funded from the Department for Transport (DFT) allocation for 2007/08. The proposal has already been included in the budget of the overall scheme and therefore there are no further implications on resources.
7.6 Legal
7.6.1 The Council regulates how traffic may use roads by means of Traffic Regulation Orders made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. This lays down a statutory consultation and public notice/objection process. The Cabinet Member must give due consideration to any statutory objections received and can:
(a) confirm the proposed traffic orders; (b) confirm the proposed orders with modifications; and (c) refuse to confirm the orders. Once confirmed, an Order comes into legal effect following a "Notice of Making" being advertised. The Council is under a duty when making any traffic order to have regard to securing "..the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic.." and the need to provide "..suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway.." (S.122 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984). These considerations may tend in different directions and it is required to take both into account and to strike a balance if possible.
7.6.2 Hearsall Common is not Common in law and has not been so since 1927. It is however held by the City Council under S.96 of the West Midlands County Council Act 1980 as an open space. A power is given under S.96(1)(b) under that Act to dedicate part of the open space to Highway purposes 'by resolution' i.e the creation of the bus lane is permitted. As soon as the resolution takes effect, the relevant piece of land will automatically become dedicated as highway. However, highway rights will only exist over the 'top two spits' and the subsoil will remain held for open spaces purposes under S.96. Once the land is physically laid out as public highway, the 'top two spits' will become vested in City
6 Council as adopted highway under S.263 of the Highways Act 1980. Effectively, the surface is held as highway and the subsoil is held as open space. This arises because S.96 (1)(b) is a power to create highway rights and not a power under which to appropriate land.
7.7 Impact on Partner Organisations The project is being delivered through close collaboration between the main bus operators, Centro and Coventry City Council. This has been facilitated by a voluntary partnership, 'The Coventry Public Transport Concordat'. Further work is being undertaken within the partnership to also introduce a Statutory Quality Partnership. This would then ensure that all buses operating in the city adhere to a defined standard and this would be matched with improved infrastructure on all of the bus routes. Hence, every bus operating in the city would be to a common standard, with low floor access, trained drivers, and Global Positioning System equipment. 8 Monitoring 8.1 The scheme has been designed to assist produce the following benefits, which will be the subject of monitoring:
Bus usage would increase by 25% on each corridor
Bus usage across the network would increase by 10% by 2011
Public transport modal split to the City Centre would increase to 30% across the day
There would be a significant increase in satisfaction levels of bus passenger users.
8.2 The introduction of the bus priority measures will contribute to achieving these targets.
9 Timescale and expected outcomes
The works to Phase One , if approved, would be completed by March 2008.
Yes No Key Decision Scrutiny Consideration (if yes, which Scrutiny meeting and date) Council Consideration (if yes, date of Council meeting)
7
List of background papers
Proper officer: Director of City Development
Author: Nick Richards Telephone 024 7683 1112 Transport Delivery Unit (Any enquiries should be directed to the above)
Other contributors: Alan Newland, Manager TDU, City Development, 024 7683 3379 Trevor Errington, Head of Planning & Strategic Transportation, City Development, 024 7683 1230 Kathy Rice, Head of Legal Services, Legal & Democratic Services, 024 7683 3096 Lara Knight, Senior Committee Officer, Legal & Democratic Services, 024 7683 3237 Richard Brankowski, Principal Committee Officer, Legal & Democratic Services, 024 7683 3077 Phil Helm, Finance & ICT, 024 7683 1301 Ewan Dewar, Lead Accountant, City Development, 024 7683 1129 Ian Brindley, Finance & ICT, 024 7683 3908 Ces Edwards Culture & Leisure, 024 7683 2348 John Venn Customer & Workforce Services, 024 7683 1125 Nigel Clews, Head of Property Management, City Development, 024 7683 2708
Papers open to Public Inspection Description of paper Location
8 Appendix 1
9.1 Arising from Newsletter around 100 visitors chose to attend the consultation event.
9.1.1 The main Consultation event was carried out over three days and attracted some 100 visitors of which some 76 comments were received. In general the breakdown of responses are:
• In favour of the scheme as proposed - 27 • In support of the inbound section, but against the Earlsdon Avenue North section - 27 • Against the proposals altogether -18 • Some 4 visitors raised other issues
9.1.2 In addition some 24 e-mail and letters have been received;
• In favour of the scheme as proposed - 2 • In support of the inbound section, but against the Earlsdon Avenue North section - 4 • Against the proposals altogether - 16 • Other suggestions - 2
9