Maresfield Traffic Report by Robert Smith November 2013

Maresfield Traffic report by Robert Smith November 2013

Planning Development in Maresfield

Introduction

The Maresfield Parish Steering Group (MPSG) has required each Working Group to produce reports on ‘Topics’ designated by Maroon Planning, consultants hired by MPSG to guide it through the necessary stages in Neighbourhood Development planning. The following paper therefore forms part of ‘Topic 1: Identifying the baseline.’ I have endeavoured to follow Maroon Planning’s ‘Template for Topic Paper’ at Appendix 1 of the SSX002 Evidence Base Toolkit. This report examines traffic and transport issues in and around Maresfield Village. I (Robert Smith) have consulted widely and have attempted to include views of all the people and groups whose opinions and help I have sought.

The main focus behind this Village Traffic Report is to encourage and promote sustainable modes of travel across the village and between villages and to access essential services, with the emphasis on improving access and movement by walking, cycling and public transport rather than by private car.

This report, setting out a framework for future transport improvements in the village, will not only set out the needs of the local community, but will give developers a clear understanding of what improvements could be required to allow development to take place. The Plan will eventually inform the Maresfield Neighbourhood Plan and could be used as an evidence base to assist the local planning authority when considering planning proposals in the village and surrounding areas.

There already exists a Maresfield Village Traffic Plan which was adopted by Maresfield Parish Council 21st September 2010. Copies of the full plan are available from Maresfield Parish Office. Below is a summary: -

The following are issues that are not covered by the three phases of the plan.

1. Issues to be addressed in this traffic report (as identified by local residents at public meetings): -

a) Traffic speed *

b) Schoolchildren delivery and pickup *

c) Travel to Hospital/ doctors’ surgeries for those without cars

d) Travel to shopping centres (Uckfield, Tunbridge Wells, Forest Row, Crowborough) for those without cars

e) Problems of getting back from Uckfield (or any centre of entertainment)in the evening or at night for those without cars

f) Commuter travel patterns

g) General density of traffic *

h) The lack of provision for safe cycling *

1 Maresfield Traffic report by Robert Smith November 2013

i) The lack of provision for pedestrians in the villages and between the villages *

j) The danger of smaller roads becoming ‘rat runs’. *

Whilst these are set out in no particular order, the safety of pedestrians and cyclists is generally thought to be of paramount importance. Issues relating to this are starred.

Maresfield Traffic and Related Travel Issues

November 2013

EVIDENCE ASSESSED

1. Summary of the Maresfield Traffic Plan (Supplied by Mr Michael Wheeler of the Maresfield Conservation Group.)

“The Adopted Maresfield Traffic Plan (AMTP) sets out to achieve three basic elements.

 To delay the progress of through traffic, especially of drivers who believe that the journey time from the Budletts Roundabout to the Lampool Roundabout and vice-versa via the village is shorter. Hopefully they will think twice and use the provided route of the bypass

 To provide a safer environment for the children, walking or cycling, travelling to school and for residents going about their daily business.

 To reclaim the tranquillity of village day to day life.

1. To do this the AMTP will create a 30mph limit from Budletts Roundabout (replacing 40mph) to the first build-out up School Hill from which point the 20mph ZONE will start. This 20mph ZONE will progress up School Hill through the village centre to just beyond The Parade and from the village centre along the Batts Bridge Road to just past the village hall. 2. In addition there will be four speed tables up School Hill to the build out adjacent to the recreation ground where the build out will be replaced with a speed table which will be adapted to provide a uncontrolled crossing to accommodate the inevitable pedestrian traffic coming from Parklands, Field End, Forest Park and The Paddock and other homes in that area, via Field End and the new Wellington Gate development that will use the public footpath and Park Farm Lane as a safe route to school and village centre. Beyond this we have already successfully negotiated (the changes have already been made) the crossing point crossing from the Church to The Chequers.

3. In Batts Bridge Road the installation of the mini roundabout has been installed and calming measures in Field End, at the cost to Charles Church, which has made a contribution to reducing traffic speed and safety along this road in the village; other measures are being considered.

4. The Straight Half Mile (SHM) is in phase two of the AMTP. However some measures are included in the draft proposals. We will be pressing for other measures that will reduce the width of the SHM to allow for a shared space for cyclists and pedestrians on the western side from Mulberry Close to Lampool Corner. In addition we are discussing a series of closely located speed tables at the northern end from the Fairwarp B2106 down to Mulberry Park.

5. Phase Three of the AMTP, village centre, which involves installing a sympathetic road surface, realignment of the junction of the SHM and High Street to make a wider pavement at the Chequers forcing a positive turn into the High Street from and to the SHM. In due course it may be possible to make the village centre a shared space, but this depends on the reduction of through traffic in volume and speed. The Stage One Safety Audit has been carried out.

It is confirmed that approximately £157k has been demanded from Charles Church (Persimmon) in accordance with the S106 of the Legal Agreement by WDC who upon collection will advise ESCC who will have to claim it. It is also agreed that a £20k contribution to the AMTP will come from the 9-home development on Park Farm Lane. This will be due on the fourth occupation. The total of approx. £197k cannot be used for any other purpose and must be used in the area that is most affected by any development. (Maresfield Village) We are in close (contact) almost every week with ESCC as well as WDC and are 100% confident of the outcome for the AMTP.”

2. Traffic Surveys

Traffic surveys have been carried out in Maresfield Village in September 2008 and September 2012.

The results of these surveys are Appendices 1 & 2

KEY FINDINGS

a) Traffic Speed Problem: - It is perceived that traffic moves too fast in both directions in School Hill, along Batts Bridge Road (BBR) and along the Straight Half Mile (SHM)

Present measures: Speed checks are occasionally carried out by the police but it is apparent that traffic only complies with the speed limit when a hand-held speed camera is in evidence. ‘Build-outs’ in School Hill and much smaller ones on SHM (there is some concern that build-outs actually increase traffic speed as motorists speed up to get through rather than wait and give way) ; Police warning signs, 30mph traffic signs at entrance to village(except north end of SHM where the speed limit is 40mph) (All mostly ignored)

Suggested measures; 1. There are eleven measures to reduce speed included in the existing Maresfield Village Traffic plan. (2010)

2. Provision of Average Speed Cameras at appropriate points in the village. (Police officers say these are very effective but Maresfield would have to bear the brunt of the cost. Once in place the police would take care of the enforcement aspects.) 3. More frequent radar speed checks If Sussex Police are reluctant to carry these out, there is a Parish Speed Watch programme which civilian volunteers organise and operate.

Cost and other obstacles to overcome: At present, advice from E.S.C.C. says “it is….Sussex Safer Roads Partnership ('SSRP') who makes the assessments and decisions as to whether a speed camera is appropriate. Should the partnership conclude that a fixed speed camera is not appropriate, the Parish would not be given permission to erect a speed camera, regardless of whether the camera was funded by the Parish.” Response from Mr Phil Henty of the SSRP is that Maresfield does not meet the collision criteria for speed cameras. (appendix 2)

b) Bonners CE School: Children drop-off and pickup, and other sundry issues Problem: - parents/carers bring their children to Maresfield Bonners CE School and park in inappropriate places because there are no appropriate places to park. Background provided by Mr Michael Wheeler: -(This)is a matter of great concern to us (Maresfield Conservation Group). …. local people are up in arms over the congestion caused at the beginning and end of the school day. There are also numerous complaints by others including the PC and the recreation ground committee. Although encouragement should be given for the children to walk to school this is not always possible for a number of reasons including safety. We don't believe that this position is acceptable and it is essential that this problem is resolved.

Present measures: In February 2013, the school has 110 pupils. There was no figure available for the number of families. Since March 2011 parents /carers bringing their children to school by car are not allowed to use the school car park as space is too limited. There are provisions for disabled parking and the school does issue permits at the Head’s discretion. Parents therefore must use the Recreation Ground car park which has a very limited number of spaces or they must park in the Church/Village Hall car park (again limited numbers can park there) or in the private road that adjoins the recreation ground. Parking in School Hill is dangerous for car occupants and other road users. The school encourages parents/carers to walk their children to school. The Pre-School Playgroup has 3 staff parking places in the school car park and Playgroup staff members are apparently limited to the number of days per week they can use their cars. A coach comes once a week to take children swimming. The school has approximately two deliveries a week from Kent County Council lorries and the ESCC courier service visits regularly too.

Suggested measures: 1. Provision of more parking space is the obvious solution but the issue is where in the village, near the school is there space for an influx of cars at drop-off time (say 8.30 – 9am) and pick-up time (say 3.00 – 3.30pm)? There is space on the Recreation

Ground for a hard-standing parking area that could be designated as a car park which could also serve as a general car park for the village. This would be unpopular with residents and Recreation Ground users at these two times of the day. But if developers/landowners were required to donate an equal space that would be lost to a car park for use as a recreation facility, complaints might be quelled.

c) Travel to Hospital, Doctors’ Surgeries, for those without cars. Problem: There is no Doctors’ Surgery in Maresfield so residents must travel to Buxted, Newick or Uckfield. There is no bus service to Buxted from Maresfield so if bus travel is needed from Maresfield to Buxted, it has to be via Uckfield where buses depart at 10.15, 12.30 and 13.30. It is similarly difficult to get to the hospital. There is an hourly bus service to Newick.

Present measures: East Sussex County Council produces a ‘Community Transport Guide’ (available from E.S.C.C.) which states: - Community transport is non-profit transport that is developed by local people and communities to serve their local needs. It provides transport where there is either no existing conventional public transport or where existing public transport cannot be used, for example because of limited wheelchair access. Most do not run to a timetable, but respond to requests when they are made. Community transport can be provided by a variety of vehicles, from a voluntary car service all the way through to a bus; it depends on the needs of the community. Community transport is available for use by everyone in the community, no matter what your age, physical ability, or financial status. According to the guide, Maresfield is served by North Wealden Community Transport Partnership Ltd (contact details available.) However, Community Transport requires a fare and is not part of the National bus pass scheme for people of retirement age.

Suggested measures: 1. It is possible few people know about Community Transport, or do not know how to access the service. A village website could carry such information or it could be displayed in a prominent position in the village. 2. Maresfield could set up its own volunteer driver group. Development work on this is taking place. A coordinator and volunteer driver(s) have been identified.

d) Travel to shopping centres (Uckfield, Tunbridge Wells, Forest Row, Crowborough) for those without cars.

Present measures: Similar restrictions to those above apply. The bus services serving Maresfield Nutley and Fairwarp are limited in frequency.

Suggested measures. Community car share for shoppers. Such a scheme could be organised via a village website

e) Problems of getting back from Uckfield (or any centre of entertainment) in the evening or at night for those without cars.

Present provision: Advice from ESCC public transport dept. is that of the services serving Maresfield i.e 31, 246, 26, 121 and the 28 & 29 which goes to Coopers Green, only the 28 & 29 operate after 18.30 hours from Monday to Saturday and then with a much reduced service . The Wealdlink Community service may operate on 24 hours notice.

Suggested measures. Community car share for revellers. Such a scheme could be organised via a village website.

f) Commuter travel patterns:

I have been unable to get any statistics of rush-hour train usage from Buxted station(see Appx 4) but I observe that the car park at the station is usually full at 10 o’clock in the morning and empty at 8 o’clock in the evening on weekdays. The problems of commuter parking in Uckfield are well documented. How much of the commuter traffic is generated in Maresfield is unknown.

Suggested measures: Community car share for commuters/ regular rail users. Such a scheme could be organised via a village website.

g) General Density of traffic Current situation: - From a traffic survey carried out in September and November 2008 the following observations were made: “The observed flows indicate that traffic levels are highest on the portion of the A22 bypass between the Batts Bridge Roundabout and the Black Down Roundabout. On the A22, traffic flows indicate that northbound is the predominant movement in the morning peak, and southbound in the evening peak. Traffic flows on the village roads follow the same patterns as on the bypass route, with northbound traffic flows heavier during the morning peak and southbound traffic flows heavier during the evening peak. School Hill carried more traffic than Straight Half Mile.” The table of Observed Weekday Traffic Flows is at Appx 1 & 2 but the totals of traffic in both directions in 24 hours were as follows: Straight Half Mile 5200, School Hill 6955, Batts Bridge Road 2293. Suggested measures: The Adopted Maresfield Village Transport Plan is intended to cut the intensity and volume of traffic. In addition to this plan I propose greater use of intelligent road signing diverting traffic away from the village centre. Signs such as ‘Maresfield Village – Access Only’ or ‘Maresfield By-Pass’ emphasising the A26.

h) The lack of provision for safe cycling.

Present provision: The only provisions for safe cycling in Maresfield occur in the build-outs in School Hill where cyclists have a small lane through rather than round the build-out.

Suggested Measures:

1. Designate the roads around Maresfield as ‘Safe-Cycling Roads’ and erect signs at the entrances to the village that say as such. 2. Delineate part of the road surface throughout the village as ‘Cycle Lanes’

i) The lack of provision for pedestrians in the villages and between the villages

Present provision in the village is poor.

 Pavements are generally too narrow to allow more than one person to walk along them. If two people meet in different directions one is usually required to walk in the road.

 One cannot walk to the Recycling Centre on pavements alone. The pavement stops some 2oo metres before the Centre and pedestrians are required to walk on un- made verge (or in the road.)

 One cannot walk between the villages of Maresfield and Nutley or Maresfield and Fairwarp without walking on the road or un-made verge.

 Walking along the Straight Half Mile is made more hazardous by the speed and proximity of the traffic. Large speeding lorries push a great deal of air in front of them and have turbulent air behind which can be disconcerting. In wet weather pedestrians are often sprayed by passing vehicles.

Suggested measures:

As in the Maresfield Village Traffic Plan there must be a cohesive and coherent plan to create adequate pavements throughout the village. Adequate means enough room for two people to walk comfortably side by side. And for the pavements to be as well maintained as the roads

j) The danger of smaller roads becoming ‘rat runs’.

Present provision: residents of Underhill, Nursery Lane Cobdown Lane and Millwood Lane are concerned that through traffic, including inappropriately large vehicles, uses these lanes for shortcuts or ‘rat runs’ to avoid traffic holdups. They are particularly worried that such usage may increase if traffic calming/slowing measures are introduced into the centre of the village.

Suggested measures:

1. Provision of by-laws/speed/height/weight restrictions

2. Signage discouraging through traffic,

3. Lobbying of Sat Nav providers so that the use of these lanes is not provided.

NEXT STEPS

In conclusion, I have examined ten areas affected by and affecting transport in the village of Maresfield. I believe the following proposals should be adopted by the Steering Group and put before the residents and Wealden District Council for discussion and decision.

Proposal 1

That all three phases of the Maresfield Village Traffic Plan should be put into action as soon as possible.

Proposal 2

That part of the Recreation Ground in Maresfield be turned over to car parking for general use by villagers and the public and for parents and carers of children attending Maresfield Bonners CE School. That an equal amount of land be turned over to recreation facilities to compensate for the loss to car parking

Proposal 3

That ‘average speed’ camera be installed at both ends of the Straight Half Mile

Proposal 4

That a Community Car scheme be set up in the village, initially to assist those without cars to attend doctors’ or hospital appointments.

Proposal 5

That a village website is developed to give information about all manner of village life such as football matches, church services, stoolball matches, village hall usage, contact details for MP, local councillors, chairs of local organisations, bell ringers, available public parking areas etc etc.

Proposal 6

That strong, informative and intelligent road signing be erected to a) discourage through traffic, b) alert drivers to cyclists and pedestrians.

ROBERT SMITH FENGARI STRAIGHT HALF MILE MARESFIELD TN22 3DN

Appendix 1 Table 2.1 from Maresfield Traffic Survey carried out by Colin Buchanan (now Sinclair Knight Merz) in September 2008

Direction 08.00 – 09.00 17.00 – 18.00 07.00 – 19.00 00.00 – 00.00 A22 (north of North Bound 576 364 4636 5722 A272) Southbound 421 635 4860 5758 Total 997 999 9696 11480 A22 (south of North Bound 983 596 7522 9011 A272) Southbound 639 970 7310 8596 Total 1622 1566 14832 17597 Straight Half North Bound 346 128 2065 2612 Mile Southbound 141 342 2141 2588 Total 487 470 4206 5200 School Hill North Bound 389 206 2735 3423 Southbound 239 431 2920 3532 Total 628 637 5655 6955 Batts Bridge North Bound 105 114 998 1192 Road Southbound 104 93 945 1101 Total 209 207 1943 2293

Appendix 2 Results of Traffic Survey from E.S.C.C. November 2012

Direction 08.00 – 09.00 17.00 – 18.00 07.00 – 19.00 00.00 – 00.00 Straight Half North Bound 429 218 2029 2528 Mile Southbound 296 576 2215 2674 Total 752 794 4244 5202 School Hill North Bound 519 395 2618 3254 South Bound 392 710 2874 3481 Total 911 1105 5492 7035

Contact details for more information: -

Russell Greig Transport Monitoring Assistant Transport Monitoring Team Economy, Transport & Environment Department | East Sussex County Council Tel: 01273 336359 | e-mail: [email protected]

Appendix 3 Advice from E.S.C.C legal department

Dear Mr Smith,

Thank you for your email sent on 21 January 2013.

Further to our telephone conversation, I would like to confirm that I have been asked to look into (1) whether if Maresfield Parish Council bought speed cameras, they could keep the fines and (2) whether Maresfield Parish Council could legally put up speed cameras / what permissions are needed in the first place.

Can Maresfield Keep the Fines for their Cameras?

In terms of how the law stands regarding who receives the fines when a motorist exceeds the speed limit, I can confirm that those public authorities who pay for safety cameras can also keep the fines. s.38(3) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2003 states that payments under s.89(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1984 (Speeding Offences Generally) shall be made to:- (a) the public authority in respect of whose expenditure the payments are being made; or (b) any other public authority for payment, in accordance with arrangements agreed with the Secretary of State, to, or on behalf of, the public authority in respect of whose expenditure the payments are being made.

Maresfield Parish Council would fall under a "public authority" by virtue of subsection 5(d) which makes provision that Maresfield Parish Council would be a public authority if it were exercising functions of a public nature. Therefore, Maresfield would be able to keep any fines under s.38(3)(a).

I must note however that this Act will be changing and it is not known how long this provision will continue to apply. Once the legislation changes, payments under s.38(3) shall be paid at such times, in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may determine.

Can Maresfield put up Cameras in the First Place?

In terms of whether the Parish Council could legally put up cameras and what permissions are needed, I can confirm that it is the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership ('SSRP') who make the assessments and decisions as to whether a speed camera is appropriate.

Should the partnership conclude that a fixed speed camera is not appropriate, the Parish would not be given permission to erect a speed camera, regardless of whether the camera were funded by the Parish. I am informed by the SSRP that any request for a camera should be passed to Phil Henty for guidance and his details are as follows:

Mobile: 07973 184 197 Email: [email protected]

I hope this email is of assistance to you and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

Kind regards,

Christina

Christina Spencer (Miss) Trainee Solicitor East Sussex County Council Governance & Community Services Department PO Box 2714, County Hall, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 1UE DX 97482 - Lewes 3 Telephone: 01273 481741

Dear Mr Smith, I refer to your email dated 6th March.

The provision of speed cameras is subject to various criteria which can be viewed at http://www.sussexsaferroads.gov.uk/files/Safety%20Camera%20Criteria.pdf

Site selection is based on collision and speed data in conjunction with on-site assessments. The current collision history on Straight Half Mile does not satisfy the base criteria.

I appreciate that the parish council will wish to pursue this further and please feel free to contact me when the steering group has prepared its report.

Regards Phil (Phil Henty)

Appendix 4 Copy of email correspondence with Southern Railway My message: -

Dear Sir/Madam I am currently compiling a Transport Report for Maresfield Parish Council to contribute to our Neighbourhood Development Plan. Part of my remit is to consider how residents of Maresfield contribute to commuter traffic from Buxted Station. I would therefore be very grateful if you could let me have any figures you may have compiled for passengers to London from Buxted at rush hour times i.e. between 6.30 and 8am and from London to Buxted from 4.30 to 7.30 pm. If you don't have such numbers then forgive me for taking up your time. Yours faithfully ROBERT SMITH FENGARI

Their response

Dear Robert Smith

Thank you for contacting us on 07 February 2013 regarding your enquiry. Please accept my apologies for the delay in our response.

Thank you for e-mail but unfortunately we at Southern don't compile such lists, we have everything is place to make sure we run the best service we can on a daily basis and the amount of passengers that use the trains through rush hour is not something we look into.

Should you ever have any further questions please let us know, if you ever have any questions about the rail infrastructure it would be best to contact Network Rail. There number is 08457 11 41 41, e-mail address: [email protected].

If you wish to contact us further regarding your query, please contact our Customer Service team directly at [email protected], by phone on 08451 27 29 20 or in writing to: Southern Customer Services PO Box 3021 Bristol BS2 2BS quoting ticket number [92564-1360253287] on all communication.

Peter Farrell Southern Customer Services

Appendix 5 Copy of email correspondence with Lewes Wanderers Cycling Club

I contacted Bob Evans of Lewes Wheelers Cycling Club for his comments and received this reply: - Hello Robert,

Firstly, thanks for contacting us. We are certainly very happy to contribute to any initiative which might make for safer cycling on our local roads. The Lewes Wanderers club does have many members who race regularly, but equally we all also ride just for the sheer pleasure of it. Given that most cyclists tend to seek out the smaller, less trafficked roads, I guess that the priority is to calm the speed of vehicles on these roads. All too often we encounter drivers on the lanes whose speed is simply too fast for the conditions. In some other countries - Spain, France, New Zealand for example - some roads are designated as cycling ways where drivers are asked to keep a special lookout for bikes and to give riders plenty of room. In Jersey in the Channel Islands, they have designated Green Roads, where pedestrians and cyclists are given priority. This kind of initiative can be relatively cheap - signage at entry points and so on. I understand that a Parish Council does not have the resources for this, and that local government generally is experiencing severe budgetary restrictions. Nevertheless, given the recent high profile of cycling at the Olympics and in the Tour de France, and the associated and dramatic increase in the number of recreational and competitive cyclists on our local roads, now might be a good time to offer further political support to those in central and local government who are seeking to provide safer cycling on our roads.

I would be very happy to meet with you to talk further about this if you feel that this might be useful.

with best wishes Bob