Minutes - Transportation Advisory Group - 30 NOVEMBER 2006

BOROUGH OF POOLE

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP

30 NOVEMBER 2006

The Meeting commenced at 7 pm and concluded at 11:00 pm.

Present:

Councillor Burden (Chairman) Councillor Gillard (Vice-Chairman) Councillors Brooke (substituting for Councillor Knight), Mrs Lavender, Parker (substituting for Councillor Leverett), Smith (substituting for Councillor Gregory), Trent and Miss Wilson.

Also attending: Councillors Mrs Deas, Mrs Moore and Wilson.

Members of the public present: 17

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gregory, Knight and Leverett, with the above substitution.

2. MINUTES

Resolved that the minutes of the Meeting held on 12th October 2006 having previously been circulated, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman declared a prejudicial interest in M.5 - Overnight Camping on the Highway and in Car Parks, as the owner of a camper van and stated that he intended to leave the meeting for the consideration of this item. He declared a further interest in M.18 - Gorlston Road/Sheringham Road parking problems as he had been lobbied.

Councillor Brooke declared personal interests in the following items as he had been lobbied.

 M5 – Overnight Camping on the Highway and in Car Parks  M8 – Speeding in Rossmore Road  M9 – Petition on Speeding in Clarendon Road  M17 – Lindsay Road/St Aldhelms Road Junction Improvement  M18 – Gorlston Road/Sheringham Road Parking Problems.

154 Councillor Mrs Lavender declared a personal interest in M17 – Lindsay Road/St Aldhelms Road junction improvement as St Aldhelms was her local Church and in M18 Gorlston Road/Sheringham Road Parking Problems as a local Ward Councillor.

Councillor Gillard declared a personal interest in the following items as he had been lobbied.

 M5 – Overnight Camping on the Highway and in Car Parks  M7 – Pay and Display Parking – Chaddesley Glen  M17 – Lindsay Road/ St Aldhelms Road Junction Improvement  M8 – Speeding in Rossmore Road as a Governor of Rossmore Community College.

Councillor Miss Wilson declared a personal interest in the following items as she had been lobbied.

 M5 – Overnight Camping on the Highway and in Car Parks  M8 – Speeding in Rossmore Road  M17 – Lindsay Road/St Aldhelms Road Junction Improvement

Councillor Parker declared a personal interest in the following items as he had been lobbied.

 M5 – Overnight Camping on the Highway and in Car Parks  M6 – Residential Disabled Parking Bays  M10 – Objections to Traffic Regulation Orders – Lewiston Drive  M14 – Florence Road Residents Consultation  M17 – Lindsay Road/St Aldhelms Road Junction Improvement.

4. SUCH OTHER BUSINESS , AS IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION.

There were no items of urgent business.

5. OVERNIGHT CAMPING ON THE HIGHWAY AND IN CAR PARKS

The Chairman commenced by stating that given to his prejudicial interest declared earlier, he would be vacating the Chair and leaving the room for the consideration of this item. The Vice Chairman there upon took the Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (in the Chair) commenced by referring to the current frustration in the lack of any powers for the Local Authority to enforce against Overnight Camping on the Highway and in Car Parks. He made reference to the forthcoming Government White Paper, which may give Local Authorities greater powers in making bylaws.

155 Steve Dean, Transportation Services, presented a Report which considered the powers that the Council had available to prevent Overnight Parking on the Highway and in Car Parks.

He commenced by stating that the Council periodically received complaints about motor caravans or caravan owners sleeping overnight on the Highway or in Car Parks.

Members were advised that the issues contained within the Report dealt with three specific areas, namely:-

(i) CAR PARKS

Council Car Park Orders included a prohibition on a range of activities that were not directly related to parking. These included overnight sleeping, cooking, washing and a variety of other activities. These activities were previously enforced by excess charge tickets, however, the change to decriminalised parking enforcement in 2002, required car parks to be enforced with penalty charge notices.

The circumstances in which Councils were allowed to issue penalty charge notices were much more circumscribed that under the previous regime and generally the guidance indicated that they were only to be used for contraventions involving duration or position of parking or incorrect payment. Decriminalised parking enforcement arrangements would not normally cover activities carried out by the driver. The parking attendants’ ticket issuing machines could only issue penalty charge notices as described in the list of nationally recognised contravention descriptions and codes. Penalty charge notices issued by the Council were subject to appeal to an independent adjudicator who would ensure that the Council complied with the decriminalised parking enforcement regulations.

The car park signs and ticket machine fascias both included warnings against camping, cooking etc. The car parks were also regularly patrolled by Council parking attendants who issued warnings to drivers who appeared to be camping overnight. The two car parks at Harbourside Park were locked at night and a note was made of any vehicle that was still in the car park but there was not generally a night time patrol of any of the Council’s other car parks.

(ii) ON-STREET PAY AND DISPLAY AREAS

These areas were subject to the same restrictions as the car parks, but being on “public highway” the parking bays were open 24 hours a day. The pay and display areas at Harbourside Park and Banks Road were particularly appropriate for use by motor caravans as the large vehicles did not have to fit into marked bays. Imposing an overnight ban would not be appropriate as the limit would need to apply to all vehicles and, in the Baiter Park area, the bays were used by residents and their visitors overnight.

156 (iii) CAMPING ON THE HIGHWAY

There was no regulation preventing members of the public from sleeping, cooking or washing in any vehicle on the public highway except for the general Highways Act 1980, prohibition against Obstruction. Unfortunately, this was largely irrelevant in respect of an area that was set aside for on street parking. However, Public Order powers had been used to remove campers from Ferry Road, but the powers used there were inappropriate for use in relation to the different type of problems in Poole.

Councils could only impose and enforce traffic or parking related regulations on the public highway for parking in the wrong place or for overstaying a time limit, not for activities in the vehicle. Parking enforcement was carried out under decriminalised powers, granted by the Government with a Right of Appeal to an independent judicator. The Council could only enforce a parking contravention under its decriminalised powers and could not issue a Penalty Charge Notice to a driver who was sleeping in the vehicle, even if a Traffic Order was made with this provision.

A “Cars only” restriction was introduced as part of the Beach Area Parking Scheme introduced in the early 1990s. The Council had been advised that it could not enforce a restriction of this type without extensive additional signage and amendments to the Traffic Order. In addition, the Scheme had already been challenged by motor caravan owners and there were no plans to extend the Scheme. Such a restriction would cause difficulties for any residents bringing a motor caravan to their home or receiving visits from motor caravan owners. A “Cars only” restriction would also apply to trade people’s vans which would mean that residents could have difficulty in finding trades persons to carry out work for them.

Members were advised that very similar restrictions were being used, albeit on a smaller scale in Bournemouth and Dorset. These Schemes needed extensive signing and unless some other restriction was being introduced at the same time, it would be difficult to justify this to deal with an occasional problem. Whilst there complaints about occasional overnight sleeping from a number of parts of the Borough, it would not be appropriate to introduce a scheme in some roads when other parts of the Borough would be unprotected. A “Cars Only” restriction would force motor caravan owners to find other places to park even whether they had no intention of camping overnight.

Members were advised that the Council did not currently patrol its car parks overnight and it was difficult to establish whether overnight camping was enough of a problem to justify introducing measures that would also inconvenience other users. In view of the legal difficulties, parking attendants have not been taking action against overnight camping, even if this was brought to their attention. The situation regarding the two harbour side car parks, was somewhat unusual in that they were locked at midnight and the attendant could be instructed to issue a Warning Notice to any vehicle which looks likely to be used for camping after the gates have been locked. This action would give an indication of the extent of the problem and how effective a warning notice was.

157 The security firm would also be instructed to note any motor caravans that appeared to be camping overnight in the pay and display areas in Newfoundland, Catalina and Labrador Drives and issue notices. Parking attendants would not normally be in a position to identify overnight camping in any of the other car parks or pay and display areas but they would issue warning notices in any cases that were brought to their attention, inevitably this would only be on the subsequent evening. The Council would only be able to issue warning notices to vehicles that were in car parks or pay and display spaces, because there was no prohibition on camping elsewhere.

The Council would be able to change the signs in the Harbourside car parks to give a stronger warning that Penalty Charge Notices would be issued to vehicles that parked overnight, as they were closed after midnight. Penalty Charge Notices would have to be issued to all vehicles, regardless of size, whether or not there was an occupant inside. The car park was also used on occasions by overnight fishermen and boat users making longer trips and the Council would also be forced to penalise them if this charge was introduced. The experience gained from issuing Warning Notices through the summer of 2007 would help this Advisory Group to decide whether or not this change could be justified when they considered the annual parking charges for 2008/09. Legal and Democratic Services were continuing to investigate whether there were other methods of enforcement that would avoid the problems highlighted in this report and which would not have the effect of penalising legitimate users.

When considering such a change, this Group would need to consider the practicalities of issuing Penalty Charge Notices overnight and the possibility of merely displacing overnight campers into the pay and display spaces along Catalina and Labrador Drive, where they would be even more un-neighbourly or to the nearby Newfoundland Drive car park or other car parks that did not close at midnight.

Members were advised that it had been alleged that articles had appeared in national publications advising motor caravan users that the Harbourside car parks offered the best free overnight parking facilities on the South Coast. The Borough of Poole currently had a very positive relationship with the media who considered this Authority already provided good general parking facilities for these users. It was proposed to undertake a media exercise explaining that if the current overnight parking situation continued, then this would jeopardise future provision. This message would be given similarly on the Notices to be placed on offending vehicles during 2007.

It had also been suggested that byelaws were another possible method of enforcement that could be tried. At present byelaws could only be obtained with the consent of Secretary of State. There was a long established legal principle that a byelaw could only be confirmed where there were no other powers deriving from primary legislation. As the law stood at present, it was very unlikely that the Secretary of State would confirm any byelaws relating to parking offences. The recent White Paper on Local Government hinted that the power to create byelaws would be extended but until draft legislation was available, it was not known if the existing restrictions would be relaxed. Therefore, it was proposed to keep this situation under review.

158 The Chairman invited Mr Howard to address the Group on this issue.

Mr Howard commenced by referring to previous incidents whereby camper vans had been reported and the person reporting had been told that there was nothing that could be done if the vehicle was taxed/insured etc.

Reference was then made to the incident which followed at Whitecliff whereby a camper van caught fire resulting in a fatality. He added that these were potentially extremely dangerous vehicles carrying highly inflammable butane gas bottles.

He stated that, during the summer months at the Baiter car park, during a Saturday/Sunday, he witnessed 12/15 camper vans parked up. He added that these gates were also locked at night which meant that emergency vehicles would also not be able to access this car park if required.

He concluded by stating that, in his opinion, if the Council did not take action to prevent overnight camping on the highway and in car parks, he felt that there would be a repeat of the incident which occurred earlier in the year.

The Chairman invited Colin Read to address the Group on this matter.

Mr Read commenced by stating that he was born and bred in Poole and was currently living in the centre of Poole. He added that, like his father and his son, he had been a motor home owner for most of his adult life.

He advised the Group that there were 151,317 motor homes in the UK which increased by close to 10,000 each year. Therefore, any decisions made regarding motor homes affected one in 120 households in the UK.

He stated that, contrary to some people’s belief that motor homes were “accidents waiting to happen”, they were in fact safer than cars and were built to the most up-to-date specification. In addition, modern motor homes were fully self contained with on-board facilities that put them in the luxury class compared to many people’s homes. They varied in size from converted car derived vans, smaller than a family saloon, to large coach built vehicles. All carried fresh water and had storage tanks for grey and black water. This meant that they did not need to discharge any waste to the environment except at appropriate disposal points. Therefore, he felt that Members needed to rid themselves of any idea that motor homes were either unsafe or a risk to the environment.

He stated that he was disappointed at the lack of statistics contained within the report, stating that he would have appreciated knowing that the night time patrols and the employment of the referred to “Security Firm” was a proper use of Council Taxpayers money. He added that he felt money should not be made available for an assessment without some evidence that there was a sufficient issue that needed to be addressed.

He stated that the Report seemed to concentrate on how a way was to be found to issue penalty charge notices, even though the Report concedes that this would merely displace the vehicles to other locations.

159 He added that he personally objected to the phrase “even more un- neighbourly” stating that he took this to mean that the author of the Report believed that the mere parking of a motor home was “un-neighbourly”.

In relation to the Beach Area Controlled Zones, Mr Read advised Members that he conducted a photo survey for almost a year in order to demonstrate that these zones were never ever full. In addition, regarding the Baiter car park issue, he advised that he regularly walked along Baiter, both day and evening, and he had yet to see a motor home parked in Baiter car park late in the evening.

He added that Members should not lose sight of the fact that Poole was a ferry port and with ferries arriving and leaving early and late, motor homes owners would always be looking for pleasant parking areas near to ferry ports and for overnight places to stay either to wait for the ferry or to rest before making long onward journeys.

He concluded by referring to “Stopovers UK” which was an organisation, much assisted by Motor Caravan magazine, to promote authorised stopovers for the use of motor homes for one, two or three night stopovers on payment of a fee. Such stopovers were common in the rest of Europe and was starting to take hold in the UK, being available from Scotland and Northern Ireland to Kent. Nearly always these stopovers were situated in Council car parks and he would urge this Group to consider this as, in his opinion, the local community would benefit by having such users patrolling what had previously been a troublesome night car park. The Council could then say that they were maximising the asset, motor home owners would have the facility to use the car park and there would be a reduction in security costs which would be a genuine “win” situation for all concerned.

Tim Martin, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, advised that this had been a contentious issue for some time now and he hadn’t been aware exactly how much so until Autumn of this year when many sources had been researched regarding this issue. He advised that, regrettably, regarding enforcement, the Council were in a “weak” position and, unless the issues were relating to “duration of stay” the Authority’s hands appeared to be somewhat tied.

In response to a question raised regarding the situation at Ferry Road, Tim Martin, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, advised that the powers used here to move on travellers was via “Public Order” legislation which needed to be supported by Dorset Police.

In response to a question raised regarding the possible use of a bylaw, Tim Martin, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, reiterated his earlier point that all bylaws needed to be confirmed by the Secretary of State and it would not be possible to achieve a bylaw for any areas that were covered elsewhere through primary legislation. However, it was hoped that the imminent Government White Paper may create more freedom to Local Authorities in relation to the making and confirmation of bylaws.

160 A Member commented that whilst he could not be sure whether or not a problem actually existed, there was an issue re possible potential risk. He recognised that the imminent White Paper would hopefully make things easier for Local Authorities to bring in bylaws.

A Member commented that he was disappointed at the time it had taken to establish that the Council could not satisfactorily enforce this issue, some four years since decriminalisation.

On considering the Report, it was proposed and seconded that:-

 within the works being carried out looking at alternative methods of enforcement, Officers look to establish new and effective bylaws;  Officers be requested to carry out a review of the signage in our car parks regarding this issue; and  Officers be requested to look for an appropriate site in the Borough for Camper Vans.

On being put to the vote this was CARRIED.

RECOMMENDED that

i) Approval be given to Warning notices, as described in section 4 below, being issued to any vehicles that appear to be camping in Council car parks or on-street pay and display parking areas; and

ii) Agreed that the number of warning notices issued will be reported to the Transportation Advisory Group at the end of summer 2007 to allow decisions to be made on further restrictions as part of the 2008/9 changes;

iii) Agreed that whilst the legal constraints and practical difficulties of preventing overnight camping on the highway are noted, the Legal and Democratic Services Unit be requested to continue to look at alternative methods of enforcement to support the work recommended in i) and ii) above with a view to establishing new and effective Bylaws;

iv) Officers be requested to carry out a review of the signage in our car parks regarding this issue; and

v) Officers be requested to look for an appropriate site in the Borough for Camper Vans.

For – Unanimous

(Councillor Burden was not present for the vote on this item).

161 6. RESIDENTIAL DISABLED PARKING BAYS

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, presented a Report which reviewed the Borough of Poole’s policy on providing disabled parking bays outside residential properties. At present, the parking policy states “appropriate parking for disabled drivers will be provided in car parks and on street close to shopping areas and public buildings”.

The following Motion was presented to full Council at its Meeting on 26 September 2007:-

“We call upon this Council to provide on street parking bays in Poole as near to their homes as possible for residents with disabilities by modifying existing policy and establishing the appropriate conditions”.

Councillors Mrs Moore, Matthews, Mrs James, Eades, Brooke, Clements, Meachin, Plummer, Trent, Miss Wilson, Wilson, Collyer, Knight and Curtis.

Members were advised that the Council regularly received requests for disabled parking bays to be provided outside specific private residences. Currently disabled spaces were provided to serve a general use outside shops and public buildings, but not outside individual properties. The Council could not allocated areas of the public highway to specific households and therefore, any residential disabled parking bay that was provided would be available for use by any disabled badge holder.

There were approximately 7,785 disabled badges currently in issue in Poole of which there were around 1,758 holders of the higher rate of the mobility element of the Disabled Living Allowance. The number of disabled badge holders rose by approximately 250 each year. The introduction of residents disabled parking bays would be in line with the Council’s policy on encouraging greater independence and engagement amongst disabled and older people.

A number of Local Authorities across the country provided residential disabled parking bays and used different standards for their introduction and enforcement. Members were provided with information on the provision provided by our neighbouring Authorities.

The Council currently enforced parking regulations under decriminalised parking enforcement powers. Experience from other Local Authorities indicated that the greatest demand for residential disabled bays came from areas of dense housing offering little or no off-road parking. Many of these areas would already been subject to on-street parking controls and it would not be appropriate to have unofficial markings within these controlled areas. It was suggested that Traffic Regulation Orders should be used to establish these disabled bays and to allow them to be enforceable. In order to keep the costs to a minimum, the Orders for disabled bays would need to be advertised in batches or advertised with other Traffic Regulation Orders. It may be appropriate to set up a mechanism to allow any objection to a disabled bay to be dealt with on a local level.

162 Providing free bays could encourage requests from residents who did not currently experience any problem. Charging the cost of introducing a bay would encourage members of the public to assess their particular need more closely and would also disadvantage the less well off members of the public. There was no budget allocation for this purpose and it was therefore being suggested that applicants should pay a standard amount (propose £250) to cover the cost of providing and eventually removing the space.

The approximate cost of the installation would be:-

 Traffic Regulation Order - £100 (if batched)  Install lines and signs - £100 (includes new posts)  Remove lines and signs, including revocation of Order - £50

A criteria would have to be met in order to ensure that applicants were dealt with consistently and a proposed criteria was provided to Members via an Appendix to the Report.

Members were advised that it would be important to assess the residential disabled bays periodically using the abovementioned criteria to make sure that the bay was still justified.

As he was unable to attend the Meeting, the following was read out from one of the signatories to the Motion:-

“I support the recommendation except for the charge of £250 per applicant. I hope that this Advisory Group will follow the Dorset County Council, Weymouth and Portland Councils no charge policy. Most of the disabled applicants will be pensioners, many on benefit who could not afford a £250 fee.”

A Member stated that she too did not support the charge adding that it was a lot for an elderly person to find, therefore she would urge Members to follow the Dorset County Council’s no charge policy where at least there was no charge for tax exempt drivers.

The Portfolio Holder advised that the provision of these facilities would not guarantee exclusive use of the space. He added that there were currently enormous pressures on the Transportation budget and therefore he could not support incurring these extra costs.

A Member stated that she was extremely disappointed that the Council could not “give a little bit” to those vulnerable people and she would urge Members to reconsider the issue of the payment.

On discussing this further, it was felt that a fuller review should be undertaken of the budget implications and it was proposed and seconded that Officers be requested to carry out a review towards a “sliding scale” based system. On being put to the vote, this was CARRIED.

163 RECOMMENDED that the decision being made on this item be deferred to enable Officers to carry out a review on a sliding scale based system.

For – Unanimous

7. PAY AND DISPLAY PARKING – CHADDESLEY GLEN

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, presented a report which considered the introduction of Pay and Display Parking charges in Chaddesley Glen in order to raise income in line with the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

Members were informed that there was a considerable demand for parking close to the Beach on many days during the summer season. Visitors would often seek out free on-street parking areas before going to pay to park in the car parks. Chaddesley Glen experienced particularly heavy parking demands as it was very convenient for the Beach.

It would be appropriate to introduce parking charges in Chaddesley Glen as it was relatively remote from other free parking areas and parking was already confined to parking bays.

It was being suggested that modern solar powered parking machines should be used here in order to reduce energy and installation costs and also to comply with the Council’s Environmental Policies. Pay and Display charges could be introduced for approximately £25,000 for which there was a provision for this in the Car Park Budget for this Financial Year.

These changes would be in line with the existing Beach Car Park Tariff and it was suggested that Beach Season Tickets should be allowed here. Whilst it was difficult to predict future income, it was anticipated that the charges would increase the use of the nearby car parks and the take-up of Beach Season Tickets to the extent that the costs would be recovered in approximately 4 years. This additional income had been built into the medium term finances for car parking.

A Member stated that she was strongly against this as the Council were gradually taking up every road in and around the Beach area and she felt that consideration should be given to those people on lesser earnings who used these areas.

RECOMMENDED that Approval be given to advertise the traffic order for the introduction of pay and display parking charges in the existing parking bays in Chaddesley Glen.

For – Councillors Burden, Gillard, Mrs Lavender, Parker and Smith

Against – Councillors Brooke, Trent and Miss Wilson

164 8. SPEEDING IN ROSSMORE ROAD

Steve Tite, Acting Head of Transportation Services, presented a Report which considered a request to reduce speeding in Rossmore Road.

A number of letters had been received from the East Alderney and Rossmore Residents Association raising concerns about the level of speeding traffic in Rossmore Road.

The Chairman invited Mrs Moore to address the Committee on this issue.

Mrs Moore advised Members that she, together with other residents, had been concerned about the level of speeding traffic in Rossmore Road for some time now and she welcomed the opportunity to be able to bring this matter to this Group for consideration.

A Ward Member thanked Mrs Moore and the other local residents for the work they had done locally in expressing a “real” feeling of concern here regarding speeding traffic in Rossmore Road. He stated that he would urge Members to request Officers to look at options to produce an inexpensive scheme to reduce speeds in these areas and also to explore the possibility of funding through 106 contributions.

In support of the above, the Portfolio Holder stated that he felt that priority must be given to this area.

RECOMMENDED that

(i) this site will be forwarded to the Dorset Road Policing Unit and Dorset Safety Camera Partnership for urgent consideration of speed enforcement; and (ii) Officers be requested to produce a scheme to reduce speeds in these areas, and the explore funding through 106 contributions.

For – Unanimous

9. PETITION ON SPEEDING IN CLARENDON ROAD

Steve Tite, Acting Head of Transportation Services, presented a report which considered a Petition to take action to reduce speeding in Clarendon Road.

Members were reminded that a Petition was presented to full Council at its meeting on 26 October 2006 which Members referred to this Advisory Group, the Portfolio Holder and Cabinet. The Petition, signed by 77 residents, stated:

“We, the undersigned, call on Poole Borough Council to take measures to stop speeding along Clarendon Road”.

Clarendon Road was straight, around 1.13 Kilometres in length and ran south- west – north-east between Roman Road in the west and the Broadstone

165 Roundabout. Up to 6,500 vehicles a day use the road which compared with over 10,000 vehicles a day using Springdale Road. It could be said that some traffic possibly used Clarendon Road as a through route to bypass any congestion at the Higher Blandford Road signals and around 170 residences had direct property frontage onto the road.

The Police Road Traffic Collision records for the four years up to the end of August 2006 indicated that there had been no crashes resulting in personal injuries along the road during this period.

Speed Surveys carried out in July 2005 indicated that average vehicle speeds were around 3.3 miles per hour and 85th percentile speeds were around 37 mph. While these were undoubtedly higher than desirable, they were in fact not unusual results for a long straight residential road of this nature.

At the meeting of this Advisory Group on 25 May 2006, a report was presented on a policy for the introduction of future SID signs. This report identified a priority list of 35 possible sites for installing such signs which included Clarendon Road. This priority list was currently being assessed and the results would be reported back to a future meeting of this Advisory Group. At this stage it was not possible to predict where Clarendon Road would feature on this priority list or even when funding may be available for a SID sign.

The TravelWise 30mph “Slow Down” signs had been present in the road during the month of November and these would be put back on the request list again for a future visit.

On the basis of the criteria for which the Road Safety Engineer Casualty Reduction Programme was currently targeted, it was not possible to justify funding any traffic calming measures in Clarendon Road at present. As a result of the residents’ concerns, this matter would be passed to the Road Safety Tasking and Co-ordinating Group for attention. This Group met on a monthly basis and its members comprised the Dorset Police, Fire and Rescue and Ambulance Services, as well as the Road Safety Teams of Poole, Bournemouth and County Council and the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership. It aims to prioritise its members’ resources in tackling casualties across the county. The Group considers all operational aspects of casualty reduction and will take this petition into account when it deployed its speed enforcement resources.

The Chairman then invited Mr Salmon to address the Committee on this matter.

Mr Salmon advised Members that Clarendon Road was originally a No Through Road, but was now a Through Road to Pine Springs. The road was also regularly used as a rat run and due to the constant stream of traffic, together with the many vehicles parked in the road, it was often extremely difficult to cross this road. He added that whilst there might not be an injury record at this point, there had been several near misses.

166 He advised the Group that the 20mph zone in Lewesdon Drive had alleviated the problem to some point but he felt that this could be improved further by the addition of a crossing point.

He concluded by urging Members to consider other calming measures in order to improve the problem of traffic speeding in Clarendon Road.

A Ward Councillor advised that Clarendon Road was a long straight road with a gentle gradient leading to the roundabout at Broadstone Way. He referred to the figures quoted in the report that 85th percentile speeds were around 37mph which he took to mean that the speeds during the other times of the day would be somewhat higher.

He advised the Group that he had spoken to the Headteacher at Springdale First School who had also expressed concerns regarding this issue which they had addressed within their School Travel Plan.

He concluded by stating that he would urge exploratory work to be undertaken towards appropriate restrictions for this area but he stressed that he was not suggesting “speed humps” but other types of speed reducing measures.

The Portfolio Holder stated that whilst he understood the problems, this was not a problem isolated to this particular road as this was an issue across the Borough. Therefore, there was a need to look to prioritise.

RECOMMENDED that the concerns of the Petitioners be noted and that they be advised that:-

(i) the concerns will be forwarded to the Dorset Road Policing Unit and Dorset Safety Camera Partnership for urgent consideration of speed enforcement;

(ii) the site is currently on an assessment list for the provision of a permanent SID sign;

(iii) the site currently has a temporary TravelWise SLOW DOWN sign.

For – Unanimous

10. OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS – LEWESDON DRIVE

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, presented a report which considered objections to the proposed waiting restrictions in Lewesdon Drive at the Cheam Road junction.

At its meeting on 6 July 2006, this Advisory Group approved the advertisement of 20mph zones in Lewesdon Drive and Gladelands Way, three pairs of speed cushions in Lewesdon Drive and waiting restrictions at the Lewesdon Drive/Cheam Road junction.

167 Authority to determine objections to the advertisement had been delegated to the Portfolio Holder.

Subsequently, a Petition was received signed by 51 residents of Wynne Close. The Petitioners felt that the proposals would significantly reduce their quality of life.

A letter of support was also received from a resident of Wynne Close and a resident of Lewesdon Drive had written to ask for the design of the cushions to be reviewed so that they would act as a deterrent to motor scooters as there were currently problems with these vehicles.

A resident of Lewesdon Drive had written to ask that the proposed waiting restrictions be relaxed to only apply at school times.

A number of points raised within the Petition and in one of the letters of objection related to the parking restriction proposed at the Lewesdon Drive/Cheam Road junction. As this element of the scheme did not need to be introduced during the school holidays, the Portfolio Holder had confirmed the 20mph Orders and speed cushions and referred the proposed yellow lines to this Advisory Group for further consideration. The representations relating to the advertisement of the proposed waiting restrictions had been circulated to members of the Transportation Advisory Group and the Chairman and Portfolio Holder had met with a Ward Councillor and a number of residents at the site.

The restrictions had also been proposed in the Springdale First School Travelplan and were intended to improve safety at this main entrance to the school. The restrictions would only apply at the junction of Lewesdon Drive, the cul-de-sac and Cheam Road and extend to cover the school crossing point and adjacent bus stop.

The option of relaxing this restriction which prevented parking only at school times was not being recommended because it was not appropriate to park close to the junctions at any time, there was little need for parking in this area outside of these times and such a restriction would create further sign clutter with the need for associated signage.

The Chairman invited Mr Walton to address the Committee on this matter.

Mr Walton advised Members that he lived in the cul-de-sac and his cause for concern was that the best solution was sought. He stated that in his view, double yellow lines would only lead to drivers speeding as such restrictions would clear the road. Therefore, he would urge consideration of single yellow lines applying.

A Ward Member expressed his concern at the process by which the speeding restrictions in Lewesdon Drive were imposed. He stated that he felt this could have been avoided if a number of issues of concern within this area had been considered together. He added that a number of meetings that had been arranged in order to rectify this situation had been “post” scheme and therefore after the event.

168 On discussing this further, it was proposed and seconded that the restrictions only apply during school time (ie, 8am-10am/2pm-4pm).

On being put to the vote, this was LOST.

For – Councillors Brooke, Trent and Miss Wilson

Against – Councillors Burden, Gillard, Mrs Lavender, Parker and Smith.

RECOMMENDED that approval be given to the proposed waiting restrictions in Lewesdon Drive at the Cheam Road junction being made as advertised.

For – Councillors Burden, Gillard, Mrs Lavender, Parker and Smith.

Against – None

Abstentions – Councillors Brooke, Trent and Miss Wilson.

11. PARKSTONE AND ROSSMORE FLYER – BUS ROUTE 8

Steve Tite, Acting Head of Transportation Services, presented a Report which considered a programme of providing raising kerbs at bus stops on the Parkstone and Rossmore Flyer Bus Route, for improved disabled access.

Transportation Services re-tendered the Rossmore Flyer Bus Service earlier this year with a revised and extended route. This bus provided a direct link to Upper Parkstone for residents in both Alderney East and Bourne Estate. This was also the only service along the hilly Albert Road. Since April, the route had also been extended to serve Lower Parkstone after requests from residents in Sandecotes Road and Penn Hill for a direct service to their local shops and amenities on the Ashley Road.

In order to gain the maximum benefit from a low floor bus, the kerbs at the bus stops should be raised. This would then permit flat, level and step free entrance into the vehicle. Members were advised that there were 43 stops on the route and it was proposed that a programme for raising them all be commenced. The cost for undertaking this work is estimated at £70,000 and it was possible to use contributions from Developer Funded schemes to cover the cost of this work.

RECOMMENDED that approval be given to undertake a programme to raise bus stops on the Parkstone and Rossmore Flyer Bus Route as detailed in the Report.

For – Unanimous

169 12. CAPITAL PROGRAMME UPDATE 2006/07

The Chairman suggested that, given the lengthy agenda for this meeting and the attention that Members would wish to give to this item, this be deferred for consideration at the next Meeting.

RECOMMENDED that this matter be deferred for consideration at the next meeting.

For – Unanimous

13. CANFORD MAIN BRIDGE

Steve Tite, Acting Head of Transportation Services, presented a report which updated Members on progress with a scheme designed to address structural deterioration of the two listed structures of the Canford Main Bridge and Canford Flood Arches in conjunction with improving the Transport Link across the River Stour at this location.

Members were provided with information relating to the following areas:

 Background and progress to date  Land acquisition  Future programme  Contract issues  Financial programme

A Member questioned what level of contingency had been built in to this programme if this scheme went over its budget provision.

Steve Tite, Acting Head of Transportation Services advised Members that a lot of Officer work had been undertaken in developing the breakdown of costs and he was confident that these were both realistic and achievable.

RECOMMENDED that approval be given to the Head of Transportation Services to acquire the necessary land for temporary and permanent works by agreement after receipt of a decision from the Head of Property Services and Portfolio Holder for Resources. Failing this, then a Compulsory Purchase Order be sought to acquire the land under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

For – Unanimous (Councillor Smith was not present for the vote on this item).

14. FLORENCE ROAD RESIDENTS CONSULTATION

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, presented a report which considered a response to the consultation on introducing a residents parking scheme in Florence Road.

170 At its meeting on 6 July 2006, this Advisory Group considered a petition from residents of Florence Road requesting a Resident Parking Scheme in their road. On 14 December 2006 this Group considered a number of alternative ways of giving preference to residents and approved a consultation exercise being undertaken on this scheme.

Members were then provided with detail regarding the proposed scheme.

The Scheme was designed to balance the need of residents and local businesses and to be flexible enough that residents were not forced to buy permits although it was not being suggested that commuter permits be allowed as the northern side of the road would remain unrestricted.

Consultation letters were delivered to properties in Florence Road and Bournemouth Road in October 2006 and, of the 180 leaflets delivered, 91 were returned the responses were detailed to Members of the Group.

The cost of this scheme would be approximately £3,000 which could be funded from the 2006/07 Controlled Parking Zones Revenue Budget.

The Chairman then invited Mr Scammell to address the Committee regarding this issue.

Mr Scammell commenced by stating that there was a real parking problem in Florence Road, largely due to the fact that residents had too many cars. He added that there was not a problem during the day and therefore he could not support parking being limited to hours from 8am-6pm, Monday to Friday. He concluded by stating that the problem was during the evenings and at weekends and he would urge Members to reconsider this issue in more detail.

In response to a question raised, Steve Dean, Transportation Services, advised that what was being proposed was the standard residents parking scheme restrictions which had been introduced elsewhere in the town.

In response to the concerns that had been expressed, a Member stated that it may be possible to redesign the scheme to suit local need when the statutory consultation process had taken place and the Council were aware of local people’s comments through the advertisement process.

RECOMMENDED that approval be given to advertise the following Traffic Orders in Florence Road:-

i) limit parking to 2hrs from 8am-6pm Mon- Fri, with an exemption for resident permit holders, along the southern side of Florence Road and along both sides of the eastern leg ii) reduce the length of the existing yellow lines at the “T” junction in Florence Road For – Unanimous

171 15. HIGHWAY STATUS OF CREEKMOOR PARK AND RIDE SITE

Steve Tite, Acting Head of Transportation Services, presented a report which examined the costs and benefits of declaring the Park and Ride site at Creekmoor to be highway.

The Creekmoor Park and Ride site was partially completed, having 320 spaces of the 527 for which planning consent was obtained. Members were provided with a plan which detailed the present layout and also indicated the highway boundaries and the area with planning consent for a temporary Fire Station.

The northern part of the car parking area was originally the westbound carriageway of the A35 Upton Road within the Park and Ride site. This gave rise to the unique situation that about 20% of the car parking spaces were legally on street, with the remainder being off street. This required a small amount of additional work in dealing with parking administration and some future changes to the car park would be easier and quicker to progress if the whole area were highway.

Members were then provided with detailed information on the ways in which the adoption to highway status would affect current arrangements.

Members were advised that Property Services employed GVA Grimley to investigate the Council’s liability for business rates and they had been consistently successful in reducing the Council’s business rate expenditure. They had advised that Transportation Services should save approximately £12,000 per annum by adopting highway status. They had also advised that this was only possible in these unique circumstances and it would not be permissible to apply this rationale to other Council car parks.

In conclusion, although the registration of highway was delegated to the Head of Transportation Services, this item had been referred to this Advisory Group because of the complex planning history of the site.

In response to a question raised relating to possible financial implications regarding the current provision for Hospital parking within the Park and Ride site. Steve Tite, Acting Head of Transportation Services, stated that he would investigate this further but he stressed that the best deal had been negotiated at the time regarding the provision of the spaces.

RECOMMENDED that approval be given to

(i) the operational portion of the Creekmoor Park and Ride site that was not already highway be declared as highway; and

(ii) the area to be used as a temporary Fire Station be declared as highway once the Fire Authority had vacated it.

For – Councillors Burden, Gillard, Mrs Lavender, Parker and Trent

Against - 0

172 Abstentions – Councillors Brooke and Miss Wilson (Councillor Smith was not present for the vote on this item).

16. WINTER MAINTENANCE

Steve Tite, Acting Head of Transportation Services, presented a report which reviewed the Winter Service Policy for 2006/07.

Members were advised that Winter Service within Poole was part of the highway maintenance function and in line with the Code of Good Practice was reviewed annually. This covered the considerations taken into account and the actions taken to address the adverse effects of winter weather on the highway network. These objectives were, as far as was reasonably practicable, to maintain the safety of users, the availability of the network and the integrity of the highway surface from the adverse effects of ice or snow.

Further detailed information was then provided to Members on:-

(i) Legal background (ii) Level of service.

RECOMMENDED that the Winter Service Policy proposed within the Report be approved.

For – Unanimous (Councillor Smith was not present for the vote on this item).

17. LINDSAY ROAD/ST ALDHELMS ROAD JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT

Steve Tite, Acting Head of Transportation Services, presented a report on proposals to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion at the Lindsay Road/St Aldhelms Road junction as part of improvements to the Prime Transport Corridor Route between County Gates and Ashley Cross.

The South East Dorset Local Transport Plan 2006/11 expressed a vision for transport in south east Dorset for the next 5 years which included the aim of providing more reliable journey times within the conurbation.

The first of the Prime Transport Corridors to be considered was the main route between Poole and Bournemouth Town Centres.

Improvement at the junction of Lindsay Road with Leicester Road was now underway and the St Aldhelms junction was the next junction towards Bournemouth. The existing junction of Lindsay Road and St Aldhelms Road was in the form of a cross roads. The section of St Aldhelms Road to the south was a short cul de sac and therefore was lightly trafficked. Further details were then provided to Members on this scheme.

The Chairman then invited Mr Vickery to address the Group on this issue.

173 Mr Vickery commenced by advising Members that he had been a resident in St Aldhelms Road for 12 years now and had been seeking improvements in this area for some 10 years. He stated that Lindsay Road was used as a rat run and as there was no other way out of the cul de sac, and that if the right turn needed to be made it was extremely difficult. He added that if the proposed lane was implemented, this would completely “block” them in and therefore he felt this suggestion was completely unnecessary.

On discussing this further, and given the concerns expressed, it was proposed and seconded that this scheme be deferred until the effects of the lights at the Lindsay Road/Leicester Road junction were known.

On being put to the vote, this was CARRIED.

RECOMMENDED that consideration of this item be deferred until the effects of the lights at the Lindsay Road/Leicester Road junction are known.

For – Unanimous

18. GORLESTON ROAD/SHERINGHAM ROAD PARKING PROBLEMS

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, presented a report which considered a Petition requesting parking controls in Gorleston Road.

At its meeting on 14 September 2006, this Group considered a Petition signed by 19 residents requesting the Council to “take action over the parking situation”. Ward Councillors had also been approached with similar concerns in Sheringham Road.

Representatives of the residents addressed the Group and explained that the amount of parking that occurred in Sheringham Road and Gorleston Road made it difficult for residents to find somewhere to park near their homes. This was exacerbated by the fact that some had no off-road parking whilst others experienced difficulty in gaining access to their driveways. At that meeting, Officers were requested to address this matter further and present an Options Paper detailing alternative solutions to a future meeting of this Advisory Group.

Members were provided with detailed information on the following options:-

 Option A – Waiting restrictions at junctions  Option B – Resident parking scheme  Option C – Daytime waiting restrictions  Option D – No change.

In conclusion, Members were advised that no injury accidents had been reported in the unrestricted sections of the roads in this area for the last 3 years and it would therefore be difficult to justify introducing parking controls here when there were similar conditions in many other roads throughout the Borough.

174 The Chairman then invited Mr Stacy to address the Committee on this issue.

Mr Stacy commenced by stating that he lived on the corner of Gorleston Road/Sheringham Road and during Monday to Friday 8am-6pm cars parked close together on the junctions which meant that sometimes he had to park some 100 metres away from his property. He stated that he did have a garage, but he was unable to access this. In addition, Sewards provided no car parking which meant that employees used this road and in addition, the road was also used by employees from Liverpool Victoria.

He stated that with the restrictions now in place in Wilderton Road/Burton Road, this had merely moved the problem onto Gorleston Road/Sheringham Road. Therefore, he would urge Members to consider the provision of yellow lines on the junctions.

The Chairman then invited Mr Nye to address the Committee on this issue.

Mr Nye advised Members that he lived in Sheringham Road and he provided Members with photographs detailing the problems being experienced with parked vehicles on the Apex. He referred to the restrictions in place in Princess Road which was a much wider road and questioned why similar restrictions could not be placed in Gorleston Road/Sheringham Road. Therefore, he would urge Members to consider lines being placed on the north side and the corner, into Sheringham Road.

A Ward Member advised that the amount of traffic/vehicles in this area had grown significantly and in addition, she understood the displacement issue.

On behalf of a Ward Councillor who was unable to attend this meeting, the Chairman requested that his representation be read out to the Committee. This was as follows:-

“I respectfully request that TAG resolves to consult residents in Gorleston and Sheringham Roads on the proposal to introduce a residents parking zone to the area.

The area suffers from employment traffic parking in the roads due to a number of factors the commercial units along Poole Road, the new and expanding units at Branksome Business Park in Yarmouth Road (particularly the move of the DVLA from the triangle in Bournemouth) and the presence locally of the railway station.

Measures have been taken by the Council, particularly in Princess Road and residents of Gorleston and Sheringham Roads cannot understand the difference between the two areas.

Despite conversations with local business owners, particularly Sewards on Poole Road, the present situation is not easing and many local residents feel only a residents only scheme can solve their problems.

175 The local situation will, in my view, only worsen when the construction of the extra units at Branksome Gate are complete as they will no doubt have inadequate parking facilities”.

A Member stated that he could not support “no action” regarding this issue as he felt there was a need for a much wider comprehensive scheme. Therefore, if supported by Members, he would welcome this issue being deferred in order to allow a more comprehensive review to be undertaken by Officers regarding the parking position for this whole area.

In support of the above, it was proposed and seconded that this matter be deferred to enable Officers to carry out a parking survey to assess the need for a residents only parking scheme for the whole area. On being put to the vote, this was unanimously CARRIED.

RECOMMENDED that it be agreed to defer a decision being made on this item to enable Officers to carry out a parking survey to assess the need for a residents only parking scheme for the whole area.

For – Unanimous

CHAIRMAN