Minutes - Transportation Advisory Group - 28 July 2011

BOROUGH OF POOLE – TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP – 28 JULY 2011

BOROUGH OF POOLE

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP

28 JULY 2011

The Meeting commenced at 7:04pm and concluded at 11:15pm.

Present:

Councillor Parker (Chairman) Councillor Trent (Vice Chairman) Councillors Brooke (substitute) Burden, Mrs Clements, Mrs Rampton, Mrs Stribley and Miss Wilson

Members of the public present: approximately 70

Officers present:

Julian McLaughlin, Head of Transportation Services Steve Tite, Principal Manager, Transportation Services Louise Saill, Democratic Support Officer

TAG9.11 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Wilson and the above substitute was noted.

TAG10.11 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Trent declared a personal interest in TAG12.11 as his wife worked at the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and all Members declared an interest in the item due to lobbying.

Councillor Brooke declared a personal interest in TAG13.11 as a property owner in one of the affected areas, Councillor Mrs Stribley declared a personal interest as a beach parking permit holder, Councillor Mrs Clements declared an interest as her employer was involved with the Tourism Management Board and Councillor Miss Wilson declared an interest as a Member of the Tourism Board. All Members declared an interest due to lobbying.

Councillors Mrs Stribley and Miss Wilson declared personal interests in TAG20.11 as Members of the Police Authority.

TAG11.11 MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Transportation Advisory Group held on 16 June 2011, having previously been circulated, be taken as read, approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

1 BOROUGH OF POOLE – TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP – 28 JULY 2011

TAG12.11 MARSTON/BAY HOG GYRATORY

The Head of Transportation Services informed the Public that there was an error in the Report. Appendix B, Section 2 made reference to “vehicles per day” but should read “typical peak hour flow”. The Group had received notice of this amendment prior to the Meeting.

The Group was informed that, should it recommend the decision as set out to the Portfolio Holder, and the Portfolio Holder approved it, this decision would be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

The Group was then given an outline of how the two bridge system would work to provide the context of the Marston/Bay Hog Gyratory. The Group was informed that the benefits of it would be a significant improvement for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as considerably improved vehicular access.

The Group was informed that it was proposed that all of the traffic orders outlined at 3.2 of the Report were going to be implemented apart from the loading restrictions on Marston Link, where it was proposed that this be delayed to see if a parking problem arose before implementation.

One of the benefits of implementing the Scheme now was a saving of £200,000 in having to reshape the Twin Sails/West Quay Road junction as it would be fitted in with the construction programme for the Twin Sails Bridge. It would also minimise the disruption to the Residents and the travelling Public by the work only being undertaken once.

The Group was reminded that its role was to recommend the Portfolio Holder approve the making and implementation of the Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) set out in 3.2 of the Report. The design, planning permission and funding had already been approved by various committees, including full Council, as set out in 3.1 of the Report. The Public was informed that the Group had received full copies of the Representations received as a result of the advertising of the TROs prior to the Meeting, but that some were not directly linked to the TROs.

A Member of Public, Mr John Biggs, then addressed the Group and spoke against the Marston/Bay Hog Gyratory for the reasons set out below:

 That streets take up all public space and consideration should not just be given to vehicles by using a gyratory design;  The design was created over 7 years ago and in that time a lot had changed;  A holistic approach should be used by considering vulnerable road users first;  He believed that gyratory designs were against Government Policy;  He did not believe that the gyratory was commercially viable; and  Believed that a “clean sheet” was needed.

In conclusion he asked the Group to consider a review of the design and that the Council should work together with the Public to ensure a satisfactory outcome for all. Another Member of Public, Mr Brian Bing, made representations. He informed the Group that the gyratory was a poor scheme that would cause concern to pedestrians, the bus routes were difficult to understand and it would be difficult to navigate for users. He stated that the Plan shown was different from the Plan approved and that it would result in the properties in the middle of the gyratory becoming isolated. In his opinion the design did not comply with the Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) which stated that priority should be given to buses, cyclists and pedestrians. He felt that proper consultation on the design had not been undertaken and that Transportation Services had failed to work with stakeholders. He informed the Group that other designs had not been taken into consideration and that Transportation Services had not provided him with statistics, when requested, in relation to the Hunger Hill Junction. He urged the Group to consider alternatives as the proposed design was based on out of date policies. He informed the Group that he had spent 50 years in traffic engineering.

Councillor Chris Wilson then addressed the Group on behalf of the Residents. She stated that she had carefully considered the proposals and the objections as well as Transportation Services responses to them and that she did not accept them. She stressed the importance of the health and welfare of the Residents and did not feel that the gyratory scheme considered these. She stated that the community engagement that took place between 2001 and 2003 was out of date and that things had “moved on”. She also stressed that she felt that there had been lack of consultation with stakeholders and that the impact of the Scheme on residents needed to be updated. She stated that the Civic Centre was a prime example of a gyratory system that was not well thought out and was dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. She informed the Group that other authorities, such as Medway, were taking out gyratory systems. She believed that the Council had got the Scheme wrong and that a new way forward needed to be considered.

Councillor Mark Howell then addressed the Group. He stated that there was some confusion over the necessity for the system in that people thought it was necessary for the Twin Sails Bridge, however this was not the case. A scheme which had already been paid for would be sufficient and problems would only occur if the old lifting bridge was up at the same time as the Twin Sails Bridge. He informed the Group that as a viable scheme had already been funded he could not see the haste in pushing this design through. He stated that the Consultation that had taken place in January 2011 was only looking at the Marston Link and not the complete gyratory scheme. He informed the Group that he felt the Transportation Advisory Group process in approving the Scheme was flawed prior to Council approval. He felt that objectors were given insufficient time to provide their representations. He stated that Transportation Services had not considered the alternatives including a design provided by Mr Andrew Hope. He was pleased with the quality of the objections received and felt that Transportation Services responses to them were inadequate and would leave the whole scheme open to the potential of a judicial review. He felt that for the Council to spend nearly £1 million on an unnecessary and inadequate project would leave it open to criticism.

Councillor Brian Clements then spoke in his capacity as Chairman of the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He informed the Group and Public that it had approved the adoption of the funding for the Scheme and not any other areas of the proposal. He stated that because different areas of the scheme were considered by different committees, it was necessary that the wider scheme needed to be considered as a whole and therefore put in a request on behalf of the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee that a review be undertaken. He stated that the Consultations had taken place in the early 2000s and that a review needed to be undertaken by external experts. He was concerned that the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been given the impression that the Scheme had to take place but had heard tonight that this was not the case.

The Chairman thanked the Councillors and Members of Public for their presentations and invited the Head of Transportation Services to respond.

The Head of Transportation responded with the following points:

 in his professional opinion the Bay Hog Gyratory would benefit the traffic movements between the two bridges;  the benefit of implementing the Scheme now was a saving to the Council of £200,000 in having to reshape the Junction;  he stated that the Plan used on the TRO advertisement only showed the Gyratory using the existing roads and did not take into account the bridge approach as it had not yet been built;  he then ran through the consultations and processes that had led to this point, which started in 2001 and ran to date, which included using external experts, public consultation, information providing, alternatives considered and how the System complied with the Borough of Poole’s policies and vision, as well as complying with wider Transportation policies;  he agreed with a need for a review where the wider network proposals, including Hunger Hill, which would be re-examined in detail at a subsequent meeting with the stakeholders;  he highlighted what technical transport models had been used to create the Scheme;  he again outlined the improvements that would be achieved by the Scheme and stated that the TROs were only for the immediate area which would create better access to the bridge. The reason for the urgency was to complete the Scheme at the same time as the Twin Sails bridge and also that the additional cost of undertaking repetitions in the building works would be avoided;  he stated that the welfare and health of the Residents was considered in the same way as it was with any TRO.

The Chairman thanked him for the background and clarification on some of the issues raised and opened the Meeting up to the Group for discussion.

A Member stated that he had read all of the objections and agreed that many were outside the scope of the TROs, however he felt that some of them had not been answered adequately by Transportation Services. He also expressed concern

4 BOROUGH OF POOLE – TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP – 28 JULY 2011 that some of the figures in response to the objections were factually incorrect. He referred to the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) Report which stated that the Hunger Hill Scheme should be reviewed as well as other recommendations. The Member stated that he felt that a review after work had been commenced was not acceptable and therefore could not agree to the Recommendation and put forward an Amendment in the following terms:

“To proceed with the rebuild of the West Quay Road/Bridge Approach junction and to allow the rest of the Scheme to be reviewed”. The Amendment was seconded.

A discussion regarding the Amendment ensued with the Head of Transportation Services informing the Group that to make Bay Hog Lane two way would result in additional land being required which would lead to compulsory purchase orders as the land is not in Council ownership.

On being put to the vote, the Amendment was LOST.

The Group continued to discuss the Scheme and had mixed opinions on whether a one way or two way streets would work best. One Member stated that this decision was not one of haste and that it had taken 10 years of planning to get to this point and asked for clarification that all other options had been considered. The Head of Transportation Services confirmed that options had been considered both in earlier master planning and also using computer modelling and also confirmed that the implementation of the Marston Link would not mean that the wider road network would end up as a full gyratory. The Portfolio Holder thanked Members and the Public for their Representations and confirmed that there would be a review of the Scheme as a whole.

The Speakers were then given an opportunity to sum up their Representations. Their summaries included:

 that the consultation was out of date;  that the figures did not add up;  that a 2 way design should be considered;  the full impact on the regeneration, housing, health and welfare needed to be considered;  the whole design and process needed to be exposed to a high level of consultation and until this happened, no work should take place on implementation

A Member moved an Amendment to the Recommendation in the Report by adding a 2.2 “to welcome the opportunity for a workshop to study further options”. The Amendment was seconded

A Member requested voting on the Recommendation as amended be recorded:

FOR: Councillors Burden, Parker, Mrs Rampton, Stribley and Miss Wilson AGAINST: Councillors Brooke, Mrs Clements and Trent.

RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder:

i) approve the making and implementation of the Traffic Regulation Orders as described in item 3.2, with the exception of the implementation of the ‘No Loading’ restriction in Marston Road, as described in item 3.4 of the Report; and ii) to welcome the opportunity for a workshop to study further options.

TAG13.11 PROPOSED PARKING CHARGES INCREASES

The Head of Transportation Services informed the Public that there was an update to the Report, at 4.2 the figure of £269,000 should now read £253,000. The Public was informed that the Group had received notification of this update prior to the Meeting. The purpose of the Report was to consider increasing car parking charges from October 2011. Along side Council Tax, parking charges provided a significant income towards the Council’s finances to enable it to deliver its services.

In order for Transportation Services to achieve the targets and budgets set out in the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan, it was necessary for reductions in costs to be made as well as increases in charges within the parking area. The Group was informed that District car parks were not included in this planned increase in charges.

The Group was then informed of the areas where it was planned to increase the car parking charges, as set out in Appendix A of the Report and was informed that feedback from consultations with local groups and businesses was generally that they were against increasing car parking charges but also recognised that the Council needed to raise additional income.

The Head of Transportation Services also stressed to the Group that the increases had already been built in to the Budget and that, should it not recommend that the Portfolio Holder approve them, the shortfall would have to be found from other areas within Transportation Services or elsewhere within the Council.

The Group expressed concern that it was not feasible to keep increasing car parking charges and was informed that the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee planned to review car parking policy and to consider the best way forward and alternative options for generating income.

Councillor Mrs Haines made Representations to the Group, including:

 that the proposal of charging for on street parking on the Sandbanks Peninsular had already been considered by the Group in January and she again reiterated that this was not the right way forward;  a precedent of charging in residential areas would be set;  the income that would be received was not sustainable to fulfil the shortfall and that more creative ways needed to be considered to raise income;

 she expressed concern that in the January report the expected income was £45,000 whereas now it was only anticipated to be £26,000. Her original proposal for this would be to increase the beach permits charges which would more than cover the shortfall;  concern was expressed that there was no plan to give concessional rates to volunteers for the National Trust if the Sandbanks proposal went ahead.

The Head of Transportation Services responded and informed the Group that the budget pressures had to be dealt with by increasing car parking charges but stated that the Officers had tried to do this in the fairest ways possible, and looked at alternatives to direct increases, such as making some car parks a minimum of 2 hours stay instead of an increased hourly rate.

The Group then discussed the proposals and its concerns regarding them, including:

 to increase by 100% the cost of the beach parking permits in 2 years was too much for people who may already pay a large amount per annum for beach hut hire;  concern regarding the residential permits for parking and questioning of how a residential parking permit could result in being more expensive than a beach parking permit;  the possibility of making a Poole residents beach permit available to voluntary workers on Brownsea Island;  the negative impact of parking meters in residential areas and concern as to where it could end;  to increase by 100% in 2 years the cost of a residents parking permit was too much;  concerns that increasing the minimum stay in the town centre car parks would result in people opting to shop at out of town shopping centres where free parking was available;  consideration be given to charging in Leisure Services owned car parks. However, the Head of Transportation Services informed the Group that it would cost money to install the machines and it would be a decision that Leisure Services would make;  concern regarding the plan to decrease the amount of free parking over the Christmas period;  concerns that the proposals were not sustainable for residents or the economy;  concerns regarding the cleanliness of the town centre car parks;  concern over unfairness to part time workers for their parking permits;  suggestion of dropping beach car parking charges in the winter; and  suggestion of free parking during the lunch hour for town centre car parks.

Members of the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee who had been invited to the Meeting expressed their views, including:

 concerns that the increases in town centre car parks would have a detrimental effect on businesses there;

 the negative impact an hourly charge proposal for Sundays would have;  a request not to increase the residential parking permits;  that the increases would mainly impact the less ‘well off’ residents of Poole.

The Chairman thanked everyone for their comments and observations and stated that a number of issues had arisen out of the debate and that it was apparent there was no general consensus to recommending the proposals as they currently stood.

A Member of the Group proposed an Amendment to the Recommendation in the following terms:

“that any decision should be deferred until a review of the car parking charges could be undertaken as set out above”. The Amendment was seconded

The Amendment on being put to the vote was LOST.

A Member of the Group proposed that the increases/changes be recommended, apart from the following:

 both the beach and residential permits only be increased by 10% per annum (Appendix A, B5, B6, M1 and M2 of the Report);  the change to Sunday car parking charges would continue to be a flat rate but increased to £1.50 (Appendix A, T7 and T8 of the Report);  there was no change to the Christmas free parking (Appendix A, T9 of the Report);  there be no change to the charges for the winter beach parking (Appendix A, B4 of the Report);  there be no change to the part time workers permit (Appendix A, T11 of the Report); and  there be no change until after the review above for the beach area on street pay and display (Appendix A, B6 of the Report).

RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder approve the new car parking charges as shown in Appendix A of the Report, with the exception of the following:

 both the beach and residential permits only be increased by 10% per annum (Appendix A, B5, B6, M1 and M2 of the Report);  the change to Sunday car parking charges would continue to be a flat rate but increased to £1.50 (Appendix A, T7 and T8 of the Report);  there was no change to the Christmas free parking (Appendix A, T9 of the Report);  there be no change to the charges for the winter beach parking (Appendix A, B4 of the Report);  there be no change to the part time workers permit (Appendix A, T11 of the Report); and  there be no change until after the review above for the beach area on street pay and display (Appendix A, B6 of the Report).

TAG14.11 2010/11 CAPITAL PROGRAMME – FINAL OUTTURN

The Group was informed that the Capital Programme implemented schemes that underpined the Council’s corporate objectives and priorities, and delivered the targets set out in the Local Transport Plan.

The Group was informed that the final budget totalled £3,450,290.39 and of that £3,250, 195.13 was spent. The balance of the budget was £200,095.26. The reasons for the underspend were:

 scheme costs were lower than originally estimated;  works were delayed or progressed slower than anticipated; and  uncertainty about office accommodation.

The Head of Transportation Services therefore requested approval be sought to re-phase £200,095.26 to the 2011/12 Capital Programme.

There was minimal Group discussion about the Report.

RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder be requested to approve the re-phasing of budgets remaining in the 2010/11 Capital Programme to the 2011/12 Capital Programme, as detailed in Appendix A of the Report.

TAG15.11 2011/12 CAPITAL PROGRAMME MONITORING

A Monitoring Statement for the 2011/12 Transportation Capital Programme and associated financial virements was presented. The Group was informed that due to the risks associated with delivering the Capital Programme, it had been necessary to review the corporate arrangements for monitoring and controlling capital schemes and expenditure.

There was minimal Group discussion regarding this item.

RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder be requested to approve the virements listed in Appendix A of the Report and that the Capital Programme Budget Monitoring be noted.

TAG16.11 REMOVAL OF BUS SERVICE IN WALLISDOWN

The Group was informed that a petition had been received, signed by 283 residents. The Petition, collected by Mrs MacKay of Benbow Crescent, requested the restoration of the route of the Wilts and Dorset Bus Company Service 14 to cover the western part of Wallisdown.

The result of this Petition, together with negotiations between Transportation Services and Wilts and Dorset Bus Company, was that they had agreed to revert to the route previously operated in Wallisdown prior to 1 May 2011, with effect from their September timetable change. 9 BOROUGH OF POOLE – TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP – 28 JULY 2011

The Group was very pleased with the outcome of the Petition.

RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder approve that Mrs MacKay be thanked for collecting the Petition and that Wilts and Dorset Bus Company be thanked for responding to requests from passengers and from the Council and agreeing to change the route of Service 14.

TAG17.11 SHERBORNE CRESCENT – WAITING RESTRICTIONS

This item was deferred to the next meeting of the Group.

TAG18.11 TWIN SAILS CORE SCHEME

The Group was requested to give consideration to making the Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) associated with the Twin Sails Core Scheme. It was noted that in the town centre location it could reasonably be expected that there would be considerable potential demand for parking from residents, commuters and visitors and therefore the TROs should be sufficient to manage the future use. A further consideration was that the Town Centre Regeneration Road network had been designed in line with principles set out in the Department for Transport Publication ‘Manual for Streets 2’, which meant that the visual impact of the lines and signs associated with the TROs was significant. It was proposed to advertise the following:

a) No waiting at any time; b) No loading; and c) Mandatory cycle lanes.

The Group was therefore asked to support the Recommendations on the basis of achieving an appropriate balance between the aesthetic appearance of the streetscene and the ability to effectively enforce against inconsiderate parking.

The Members discussed the double lines and concluded that they should remain as normal, ie yellow and 75mm wide.

RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder approve the advertising of the TROs as described in Item 3.5 of the Report and that Members give advice on the timing for implementing the orders as described in Items 3.6 to 3.8 of the Report.

TAG19.11 POOLE PARK CAR PARKING AMENDMENTS

The Group was informed that it was being asked to recommend the approval of the advertisement of the Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to rationalise the parking controls in Poole Park. It was requested that the Group give consideration to the current parking time limits in Poole Park; results of the initial consultation and aims to rationalise the time limits resulting in the car parking in the park being for Poole Park visitors and users.

The proposed changes to the car parking time limits would encourage a better balance between genuine park users and turn over of spaces to deter town centre shoppers and workers parking in Poole Park.

A Member stated that he was amazed that parking restrictions had not historically been enforced. The Group discussed the proposals and possible alternatives.

RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder approve the advertisement of the TROs for rationalised time limits in Poole Park, as supported by the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee and described in Item 6.1 of the Report.

TAG20.11 SAFETY SCHEME IN TATNAM ROAD

A Petition had been received from residents of Tatnam and Wimborne Road calling for a response to “dangerous driving which occurs on a daily basis”. In conclusion the Residents requested “to see a safety scheme put in place along Tatnam Road”.

Transportation Services had investigated and discovered that records indicated that in the last 5 years there had only been two slight accidents resulting in personal injury. A recent spot survey showed the average speed of vehicles in Tatnam Road was 33mph. Using this information and on the basis of the criteria by which the Road Safety Engineering Programme was currently targeted, it was not possible to justify any road safety intervention measure in Tatnam Road at present.

There was minimal Group discussion although they did request that the situation be kept under review.

RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder approve

(i) that the concerns of the Petitioners be noted, and they be advised that it is not possible to justify introducing a Road Safety Scheme here at present and that this matter be forwarded to the Dorset Police Road Policy Unit, Dorset Road Safe and Safer Neighbourhood Team for their consideration for speed enforcement. (ii) That the Petitioners be informed of any resulting actions/responses.

TAG21.11 TERMS OF REFERENCE – SCHEMES OF REVENUE AND CAPITAL VIREMENT DELEGATIONS

The contents of the Information Only Report were noted.

TAG22.11 FORWARD PLAN

The contents of the Information Only Report were noted. Concern was shown regarding the number of items for the September Meeting and the Clerk was asked to arrange an additional Meeting of the Group in October.

CHAIRMAN