BOROUGH OF POOLE

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP

25 MAY 2006

The Meeting commenced at 09:30 hours and concluded at 12:10 hours.

Present:

Councillors Mrs Deas (substituting for Councillor Burden), Gillard, Gregory, Knight, Mrs Lavender, Trent, Leverett and Wilson (substituting for Councillor Miss Wilson).

Members of the public present: 8

1. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

Councillor Burden was elected Chairman of the Transportation Advisory Group for the ensuing Municipal Year.

2. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN

Councillor Gillard was elected as Vice-Chairman of the Transportation Advisory Group for the ensuing Municipal Year and thereupon took the Chair.

3. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Burden and Miss Wilson, with the above substitutions.

4. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 April 2006 be approved and signed as a true record.

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

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

All Members declared personal interests in M.6, Petition – Talbot View Estate, Bus Services as they had been lobbied.

Councillor Parker expressed an interest in M.11 and 13, Diversion of the Public Footpath at Dolphin Quays and Lindsay Road/Leicester Road Junction as he had been lobbied on these items.

Councillor Knight declared a personal interest in M.6 – Petition – Talbot View Estate, Bus Services as an employee of Go Ahead.

1 Councillor Mrs Deas declared a personal interest in M.8 – Parkstone Ward Issues – as her husband was a member of the East Dorset Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club.

6. PETITION – TALBOT VIEW ESTATE, BUS SERVICES

The following Statement was read out in response to the Petition submitted by the Branksome Residents Association regarding the Wilts and Dorset Bus Service Revisions from 4 June 2006:

“Wilts and Dorset Bus Company will be making a number of changes to their Poole network from 4 June. For many residents of the Borough, there will be an improved service with extra buses, more direct routes and improved reliability. However, some people will see their services reduced or withdrawn. This includes the removal of the twice hourly service to Poole and Bournemouth that operates via Talbot View Estate. The bus company will continue to operate a half-hourly service but this will not operate via the estate. It will instead operate via Winston Avenue as far as Guest Avenue then onto Yarmouth Road.

A number of complaints have been received from residents of Talbot View and their representatives in addition to the 280 name petition received via Branksome Residents Association. The complainants have pointed out that the walk to the bus stop involves a steep hill making it difficult or impossible for many older people and people with disabilities.

The Borough of Poole has limited resources for supporting bus services. However, emergency action has been taken to ensure a minimum level of service is retained in most of the areas affected by service reductions in the Borough.

For Talbot View and the Bloxworth Road estate which has also lost its bus service, a temporary arrangement has been agreed with Roadliner Passenger Transport to operate a replacement service until the end of September. The route will provide a service to Ashley Road, where frequent services operate to Poole and Bournemouth. It will then operate on to Tower Park to meet an outstanding request to reinstate the link lost after service changes last summer (a petition was considered by TAG at the meeting on 9 March this year).

The route will operate on Mondays to Saturdays with 4 return journeys per day from Talbot View between 0930 and 1730. A similar number of journeys will operate from Bloxworth Road, combining at Alder road Parade to provide an approximately hourly service. Full details of the timetable may be found on the Council’s website: www.boroughofpoole.com.

The future of all of the supported local bus services will be considered as part of the Council’s Route & Branch bus services review.”

Mr Barney, as a signatory to the Petition, briefly addressed the Advisory Group thanking the Council for this replacement Service.

2 The Chairman referred to the work currently being undertaken by the Route and Branch Review Group who were currently assessing the most affected areas by the Service changes with a view to implementing temporary measures.

A Member presented a Petition to Transportation Services regarding the “158” Service. This would now be addressed by Transportation Services through the Route and Branch Review Group.

AGREED that the Update Statement be noted.

7. DRIVEWAY PROTECTION MARKINGS

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, presented a Report which considered the use of Driveway Protection Markings.

Members were advised that the Newtown and Parkstone Area Committee had requested this Advisory Group to consider a Borough-wide policy for allowing white lines to be painted to prevent parking across accesses to premises.

The 1994 Traffic Signs Regulations included the marking to deter drivers from parking across driveways or dropped kerbs where pedestrians crossed the road. However, the marking, which extended no more than one metre either side of the dropped kerb, had no legal force and was intended as “advisory only”. In addition, the Traffic Signs Manual emphasised the need to ensure that these were only used sparingly and recommended against using excessively long markings or over- providing as this would bring them into disrepute and therefore compromise their effectiveness.

Members were advised that the Council received a large number of requests to protect private accesses from problems associated with parking. These problems were largely:-

 obstructive parking across the access  obscured visibility when using the access  difficulties manoeuvring at an access

There were so many private accesses in any urban area that the Council could not possibly take on the responsibility of protecting them all. The Council already operated a policy that waiting restrictions would not normally be introduced to protect private accesses. Often the parking problems were caused by differing opinions amongst residents living nearby and it would be difficult to justify protecting one access when others were left unprotected in the same road. However, markings had been used very successfully to protect pedestrian crossing points and the Council had a programme of dropping kerbs to help disabled people cross roads but drivers often did not realise the kerbs had been dropped. These protective markings were a useful indication that a particular area should be left clear.

A Member commented that this particular issue had increased as a problem and it was unfortunate that the ATM budgets had been reduced for the Area Committees.

3 A Member stated that he welcomed the report adding that if such uses were extended this would simply lead to proliferation with one request leading to many others. Therefore, it was his view that such use should be “the exception, rather than the rule”.

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, concluded by stating that a “centralised policy” would ultimately be the key and this would be streamlined through this Advisory Group.

AGREED that

(i) the current practice continue in that driveway protection markings should be reserved for particularly unusual circumstances; (ii) continued use of markings to keep crossing points clear be approved.

For – unanimous

8. PARKSTONE WARD ISSUES

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, presented a report which considered requests from the Newtown and Parkstone Area Committee regarding traffic and parking issues in Parkstone.

Members were advised that on 1 March 2006, the Newtown and Parkstone Area Committee considered requests for parking restrictions to protect accesses in North Road and Salterns Road and at this meeting, the Area Committee agreed to ask this Advisory Group to consider:-

(i) Extending parking controls in North Road between Danecourt Road and St Peter’s Road (ii) Reducing the volume of traffic using Salterns Road and the possibility of white lines along the road to provide passing bays. In addition, Ward Councillors had also received requests for parking controls in Courtney Road and had therefore asked this Advisory Group to also consider this.

(i) North Road/Danecourt Road/St Peter’s Road

The Traffic Panel’s recommendation on the request for daytime waiting restrictions in North Road between Danecourt Road and St Peter’s Road were provided to Members via an Appendix to the Report. The Area Committee had felt that parking had been displaced to this location by the nearby Civic Centre Area Parking Scheme and therefore, felt that this Advisory Group should consider extending parking controls to this section of North Road. The Civic Centre Area Parking Scheme had been reviewed in some detail several times in the past and experience indicated that piecemeal extensions to the zone merely displaced the parking to the next available section of unrestricted road and Members would be aware that there were other roads where parking pressures were being experienced.

4 Members were advised that an extension to the parking controls was about to be advertised in Springfield Crescent and this followed an extensive consultation exercise that had previously been approved. The Report on Springfield Crescent reminded Members that any further extensions or modifications to the Civic Centre parking zone should not be considered without a specific financial allocation being made. Therefore, the Traffic Panel’s recommendation was that there was no specific need to introduce parking restrictions in this section of North Road.

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

Mr Pullin commenced by advising Members that he lived at 109 North Road and had some knowledge of the difficulties experienced by Council’s in dealing with parking related matters having for 20 years, previous to retiring to Poole, being the Head of Parking Services for a London Authority.

He stated that when the residential parking zones were introduced in the area a section of North Road, between its junctions with Harbour View Road and Danecourt Road were omitted from the regulations. He added that this section was the only length of unregulated kerbside space within the notional boundary of the controlled zone and, as a consequence, was used by non residents to park for the whole working day Monday-Friday. Outside of these hours and at weekends, there was virtually no on-street parking in this section of the road.

The parking seriously hampers residents’ endeavours to exit their off-street parking areas by obstructing and obscuring sight lines. This section of North Road was subject to not only to the normal volume of traffic for the road, which included a substantial number of bus services, but additionally the rat running between St Peter’s Road and Danecourt Road. The problem is exacerbated by the bends at either end of the section which further reduces the extended sight lines for observing oncoming traffic. For these reasons, Mr Pullin was requested “simple waiting restrictions” rather than the introduction of permitted waiting spaces. He felt that such restrictions would not create a precedent as it was quite common practice to restrict parking on sections of road where the volume of traffic or sight lines demand it as demonstrated by the existing “at any time” restrictions.

Mr Pullin referred to the Traffic Panel recommendations which referred to the reviews of the Civic Centre Area Parking Scheme that had been undertaken, he commented that surely this was a normal consequence and it would be very surprising if these had not been carried out. He added that the report noted that the piecemeal extension of the control zone merely moved parking to the next available area. He added that this was of course the case and any further extensions would continue to do so until any available parking area was so far from the destination of the drivers that it became unattractive.

In conclusion, Mr Pullin requested the Advisory Group to amend the recommendations and therefore approve the advertising of Monday to Friday daytime waiting restrictions or alternative to extend the existing control zone to this section of North Road.

5 A Member stated that full consultation with “all” residents would need to be undertaken in order to extend the residents parking zone adding that this should not be extended on a “convenience” base.

AGREED that no action be taken to introduce further waiting restrictions in North Road.

For – Councillors Mrs Deas, Gillard, Gregory, Knight, Mrs Lavender, Trent and Leverett.

Against – None.

Abstention – Councillor Wilson.

(ii) Salterns Road

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, informed the Advisory Group that the Newtown and Parkstone Area Committee had considered this matter following a request from the East Dorset Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club for measures to improve visibility at their access. The Area Committee felt that a driveway protection marking might help to keep the access clear and also provide a passing place in the road. It was also felt that reducing the amount of traffic in the road would also make the accesses easier to use.

The carriageway in Salterns Road varied between 7.5-8 metres in width and it was not uncommon to encounter two-way traffic and parking on both sides of a residential road of this width. There had been no injury accidents in Salterns Road in the last three years and therefore it would be difficult to justify traffic calming measures. Although the section of Salterns Road south of the bridge was two-way, there were a series of one-way restrictions north of the bridge and these already limit its attractiveness as a through route. Therefore, it had not been considered appropriate to introduce further traffic restrictions.

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

Mr Lonsdale advised Members that it was the wish of the East Dorset Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club to improve access for its Members when leaving the Club. He added that this was also a busy bus route.

A general discussion then took place regarding which properties in the surrounding areas had off road parking.

It was proposed and seconded that

(i) White Line Markings be trialled outside the access drive to the East Dorset Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club in Salterns Road; and

6 (ii) The request for double yellow lines in Salterns Road be referred back to the Area Committee for consideration.

On being put to the vote, the result was as follows:-

For – Unanimous

(iii) Courtenay Road

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, reported on a request for marked bays and associated restrictions to control parking. Members were advised that this was another road on the fringe of the Civic Centre Area Scheme but observations suggested that parking was also associated with properties in Castle Hill as well as the commercial area. The road was nominally 7.3 metres wide and it was appropriate to accommodate parking on both sides of a residential road of this width. As with North Road, introducing parking controls would merely intensify the level of parking in other unrestricted roads nearby.

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

Mr Yateman stated that this road was used by commuters as well as visitors to the nearby Post Office Training Schools. He also felt that action should be taken here in order to address the safety aspect regarding a number of welfare vehicles that needed to use the road (Age Concern etc). In conclusion, he stated that walls had also been knocked down.

AGREED that no action be taken to introduce further waiting restrictions in Courtenay Road.

For – Unanimous

9. BOURNEMOUTH AND POOLE KEY STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION – DRAFT RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Steve Tite, Highways Manager, presented a Report on the Joint Consultation Draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

The Borough of Poole was under a statutory duty to produce a Rights of Way Improvement Plan for “Local Rights of Way” by November 2007. Given the closeness of the two Authorities, it was clear that a Joint Plan would be appropriate for the conurbation.

Members were advised that copies of the Draft Joint Plan had been deposited in each of the Group Rooms and these had been prepared by Officers with input from Members of the “e-Reference Group”, and the Local Access Forum.

AGREED that approval be given to

7 (i) the Draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan;

(ii) the subsequent method of consultation with Stakeholders and Needs Assessment Process as described in the Report; and

(iii) the production of the final Rights of Way Improvement Plan in Spring 2007.

For - Unanimous

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

10. SANDBANKS ROAD CYCLEWAY

Steve Tite, Highways Manager, presented a Report which considered a scheme to provide an on-road cycleway in Sandbanks Road, between Elgin Road and Evening Hill. The development of cycle lanes was in line with the Borough’s policy on cycling which stated that a safe, secure and convenient network of cycle ways would be developed and maintained to encourage this form of transport.

Members were then provided with further information regarding the background of this scheme together with further considerations.

In conclusion, Members were advised that this appeared to be a most welcomed scheme and included the provision of a new pedestrian refuge in Sandbanks Road funded from contributions from the developers of the new Doctors Surgery at the Elms Avenue/Sandbanks Road junction.

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

Peter De Lieu commenced by stating that this proposal was strongly supported by CLAG and, on behalf of this Group, Mr De Lieu expressed the appreciation to the Officers for taking into account many of the observations that had been made by CLAG.

He added that he had recently spent a number of hours stopping and questioning cyclists using this route which involved him speaking to families, elderly people and youngsters as well as several overseas visitors and all of these cyclists welcomed the idea of cycle lanes which would link Sandbanks to Poole via the cycle path around Baiter.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Lovett addressed the Committee regarding this matter.

Mr Lovett advised the Group that he was pleased with the crossing facility in Sandbanks Road.

He made reference to the issue of the “safety of pedestrians” which he felt should be a criteria that was levied on developers.

8 Jim Bright, Head of Transportation Services, stated that the Council did seek appropriate mitigation through the planning process and this was dealt with in a “balanced way”.

A Member stated that whilst the Council could not demand a Developer to fund a pedestrian crossing, the Council were able to use any Developer Funding in the most effective ways.

Jim Bright, Head of Transportation Services, advised that the General Contributions Policy was now out for consultation as part of the Regional Spatial Strategy.

A Member commented that he welcomed this and would support any moves towards a better system of Developer Contribution Allocations.

AGREED that approval be given to the proposed scheme as detailed in the Report and authorise the advertisement of the associated Waiting Restriction Orders.

For – Unanimous

11. DIVERSION OF THE PUBLIC FOOTPATH AT DOLPHIN QUAYS

Steve Tite, Highways Manager, presented a report seeking authorisation to the diversion of a public footpath at the Quay to a new alignment in order to take account of the as built layout of the building.

Further information was then provided to Members on the current position, highway implications and financial implications.

In response to a Member question, Steve Tite, Highways Manager, confirmed that any costs associated with the making of the Order would be funded by the present builder/owner.

AGREED that authorisation be given to advertise an Order for the footpath to be diverted to the revised alignment through the undercross at Dolphin Quays under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980.

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

12. SPEED INDICATOR DEVICE SIGNS

Steve Tite, Highways Manager, presented a report which considered a policy for the introduction of future Speed Indicator Device signs and to approve a method of assessing a priority implementation list.

Speed Indicator Device signs had been used as an effective tool in the Council’s Road Safety Strategy since one sign was purchased to rotate around four

9 locations in 2000. The use of these signs had been extended over the years such that, in February this year, approval was given for new signs, making a total of 17 permanent sites around the Borough.

Further information was then provided on future proposals and selection criteria policy together with funding implications.

A Member stated that he supported the selection criteria adding that the permanent activation of the signs should be used as widely as possible.

A Member concurred with this view stating that he to supported the SID Programme adding that he felt this sent out a good message to the local community as well as supporting smaller communities.

At the agreement of the Chairman, Mr Mason briefly addressed the Committee with regard to the position in Pergin Crescent regarding the fact that the Dorset Camera Safety Partnership could not monitor the speed on the eastbound part of this carriageway. He also referred to a Petition that had been prepared which indicated 100% support from nearby neighbours. It was agreed that a further report would be presented back on the contents of this Petition.

AGREED that approval be given to the Policy, the method of prioritising sites and the operational considerations as described within the Report.

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

13. LINDSAY ROAD/LEICESTER ROAD JUNCTION

Steve Tite, Highways Manager, presented a report which considered a scheme to reduce congestion at the Lindsay Road/Leicester Road junction.

The South East Dorset Local Transport Plan 2006-11 had recently been finalised and submitted to Central Government. This was prepared jointly by Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset and the document expressed a vision for transport in South East Dorset for the next five years. This included:-

 More reliable journey times within the conurbation  Improved journey times between the Port, Bournemouth Airport, Town Centres, industrial areas and the national road network.

The Government had developed and agreed with the Local Government Association four shared priorities for the delivery of Transport Strategy around which the Local Transport Plan was structured. The four shared priorities were congestion, accessibility, road safety and air quality.

The Strategy for delivery under the heading of congestion included a number of strands with one of the main features being the improvement of traffic movement along several prime transport corridors.

10 The first of these to be considered was the corridor along the main route between Poole and Bournemouth Town Centres. The corridor concept looked at improvements not only on the main A35 but also on the parallel alternative routes of:-

 Ashley Road (Sea View-Redlands Roundabout)  Station Road-Penn Hill Avenue-Leicester Road-Lindsay Road

The first scheme to be considered in detail on this corridor was the junction of Lindsay Road with Leicester Road where the right turn out of Lindsay Road was difficult, particularly at peak times. This led to considerable congestion as well as causing extensive rat-running through the nearby roads of Wilderton Road and Leicester Road. Members were provided with information regarding the current traffic flows.

Further information was then presented to Members on the two options for improvement of this junction which had been assessed. These included a signalised junction and a mini roundabout.

The Chairman then invited Mr De Lieu to address the Advisory Group on this matter.

Mr De Lieu commenced by stating that he did not feel that traffic signals were the solution at this junction. He added that since the installation of traffic lights at Bourne Valley Road, the queues of traffic and journey times were longer on Poole Road and traffic volume and journey time had also increased along Lindsay Road. He added that this totally contradicted the hierarchy of solutions for cycle routes which called for the reduction in volume of traffic on cycle routes. With the volume of traffic previously using this road and the deplorable condition of the nearside surface, it was no wonder that there were complaints that some cyclists were still riding illegally on the footway. The position of the ‘Advance’ stop lines at this junction would, he believed, exacerbate this nuisance.

Mr De Lieu stated that in his opinion, traffic lights at this junction would not improve traffic movement adding that this proposal would not assist cyclists and would also delay the passage of pedestrians. Therefore, Mr De Lieu requested Members to agree that this matter be referred back to the Area Committee before consideration by this Advisory Group.

A Member concurred with this view stating that he did not support the recommendation and therefore agreed to this being considered by the Area Committee before this Advisory Group.

Jim Bright, Head of Transportation Services, referred to the progress made with signalised junctions, the creation of reliable bus journey times adding that all these were used in order to manage the network passively. Now, the Council wished to manage this “actively”.

AGREED that

11 (i) this be reported to the Area Committee for local opinion, prior to the Portfolio Holder confirming this decision.

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

(iii) minded to recommend approval to the signalised junction scheme, as shown on drg JC0552/16 at Appendix A to the report, subject to (i) above.

For: Councillors Gillard, Gregory, Mrs Lavender, Trent and Leverett.

Against: Councillor Wilson

Abstentions: None (Councillor Knight was not present for the vote on this item).

CHAIRMAN

12