Cabinet 17 October 2012 12.30 Pm Item Public MINUTES of the CABINET MEETING HELD on WEDNESDAY 12 SEPTEMBER 2012 12.30 Pm –
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cabinet Item 17th October 2012 3 12.30 pm Public MINUTES OF THE CABINET MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH SEPTEMBER 2012 12.30 pm – 13.50 pm Responsible Officer: Penny Chamberlain e-mail: [email protected] Tel: 01743 252729 Present: Mr K Barrow (Leader) Mr G Butler, Mr S Charmley, Mrs A Hartley, Mr S Jones, Mr M Owen, Mr M Price and Mr M Taylor-Smith 60.0 Apologies for Absence 60.1 An apology for absence was received from Mrs C Motley. 61.0 Disclosable Pecuniary Interests 61.1 Members were reminded that they must not participate in the discussion or voting on any matter in which they had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and should leave the room prior to the commencement of the debate. 61.2 Mr P Nutting asked that it be recorded that he had left the room prior to the commencement of the discussion and voting on Minute 75 (A Business Improvement District for Shrewsbury Town Centre). 62.0 Public Questions 62.1 The Leader reported that the following statement had been received from Mr Petridis of Shrewsbury in relation to the report from the Protecting and Enhancing the Environment Scrutiny Committee on the proposed removal of the pedestrian refuge on Smithfield Road: “The pedestrian and cycling refuge and crossing in Smithfield Road is now an established right of the people of Shrewsbury, increasing safe accessibility to the traders of the town centre, as well as allowing direct access to the new tourist asset, the Quantum Leap. There are no proven reasons for its removal, while everyone agrees that it will soon need to be upgraded to a zebra or pelican crossing. Therefore, the only logical course of action is to wait until that time, while also improving the traffic lights coordination and continuing to take advantage of the traffic calming effect which the refuge is offering. Cabinet: 17th October 2012 – Minutes of the meeting held on 12th September 2012 The main technical aspects in assessing the refuge question are summarised below: 1. CYCLING. The Crossing is part of a strategic cycling route which forms a safe access for cyclists to the Town Centre, via Roushill. The Core Strategy, which Shropshire has adopted, specifically recommends “protecting and enhancing strategic and local cycling routes” (CS7). In fact this is the ONLY route available to reach the Market Hall area from the Welsh Bridge. Therefore the Government funds for this project were well spent. 2. USAGE. The crossing is used daily by more than 150 people according to official counts. For this level of usage the sophisticated algorithm used by the Scrutiny Committee in its current report, Recommend among other measures the use of a refuge (appendix 2), such as the one in existence. For the increased usage, which is expected after the hotel development etc, the recommendation is zebra or pelican crossing. 3. ACCIDENTS. The majority of the traffic accidents along the whole length of Smithfield Road had nothing to do with the refuge, as it has mistakenly been reported in the press. In fact the same report states that “the analysis of (these) data does not suggest that the refuge has increased accident risk”. For example, in one case “vehicle 2 following vehicle 1 into Bridge Street from Smithfield Road run under nearside wheels of vehicle’s 2 tractor unit”... In another a pedestrian was struck by a bus entering the Bus Station! And in another the driver opened a door while moving and caused an accident. 4. MERGING TRAFFIC. The merging behaviour of drivers on entering Smithfield Road from the Welsh Bridge and Bridge Road simultaneously has greatly improved with time, as anyone can see, because most drivers yield and allow merging. In the future the situation can be further improved by coordinated signalling, which is already proposed for the area! 5. TAILBACKS. There were no tailbacks at Copthorne Road or the Mount in August. If some tailbacks form later in the year at peak times, they are mostly relating to traffic heading towards the large Frankwell carpark via the Frankwell roundabout, where it has priority and as such they cannot be associated with the refuge. In any case there are no statistical data prior to the construction of the refuge for any comparisons. 6. TRAFFIC CALMING. The refuge, according to all authorities, including the Police and the Transport Department has succeeded to calm traffic along Smithfield Road, reducing the average speed by 5mph, which was a serious requirement by the same authorities before the introduction of the crossing. Therefore there is no need to seek further calming measures with their corresponding costs. 2 Cabinet: 17th October 2012 – Minutes of the meeting held on 12th September 2012 7. TOURISM. The same crossing is also contributing to the tourist aspirations of Shrewsbury by increasing accessibility to the Riverbank and the expensive Quantum Leap, which is now another active tourist attraction for this town. Clearly this town needs to maximise the effect on tourism by all its assets. 62.2 The Leader then indicated at this point in proceedings that he intended to use his discretion to suspend the Procedure Rules with regard to the operation of public questions and statements to enable the Clerk for Shrewsbury Town Council to make her representations during Members consideration of the matters relating to the pedestrian refuge in Smithfield Road (Minute 64 refers) and the transfer of central area land etc to Shrewsbury Town Council (Minute 81 refers). 63.0 Matters Referred from Scrutiny/Council 63.1 No matters had been referred from Scrutiny/Council. 64.0 Report of the Protecting and Enhancing our Environment Scrutiny Committee regarding the proposed removal of the Smithfield Road Pedestrian Refuge, Shrewsbury 64.1 The Portfolio Holder for Learning and Skills introduced a report by the Scrutiny Committee – copy attached to the signed minutes - on the outcome of their second meeting held to consider the proposal to remove the pedestrian refuge on Smithfield Road following Cabinet’s decision to refer the matter back for further consideration to enable them to review the additional information that had become available since their initial meeting, and to consider the merits of installing an alternative traffic scheme at the location, given the wider context of traffic schemes in Shrewsbury and future developments in the locality. He indicated that the additional information was in fact an independent “sense check” of all information available and the Committee’s original recommendation, and that the second scrutiny report had found there to be little fundamental difference between both reports. More personal injuries had occurred in the locality since their consideration but only one was associated with the refuge. In supporting the removal of the refuge, the Committee had agreed that monitoring should take place in future of traffic speed and flows, with consideration being given to any further road safety enhancements, if deemed necessary. He asked Members to support the Committee’s recommendations. 64.2 The Local Member then spoke on the issue during which he indicated that a more wide ranging look should have been given to the traffic flows in the area and more time allowed before a decision was made on the issue. In referring to the statistical data on the issue, he commented that the only hard evidence available showed that there had been a reduction in traffic speed along the road which was an important traffic calming device and that this should be born in mind before removing the assistance provided by the refuge to cyclists and pedestrians. He suggested that further data on traffic flows and choices in the town centre should be sought prior to any decision being taken. In turn, the Portfolio Holder explained that the proposed new traffic signal upgrade in 3 Cabinet: 17th October 2012 – Minutes of the meeting held on 12th September 2012 the area had been well researched before being included in the programme for next year. 64.3 A second Member also spoke in favour of the refuge being retained due to its contribution to traffic calming in the area and asked that the opportunity be taken for further thought to be given as to how best to deal with traffic congestion in the area particularly in light of there being no need to travel through the town, given the other outer routes available to motorists. A third Member also spoke in favour of the refuge being kept due to the part it played in reducing traffic speeds by 5 mph along the road and commented that in his view there was no justification for the removal of the refuge which offered a safe alternative crossing area to join up these two parts of the town. 64.4 In turn a Member referred to his experience of the crossing and indicated that he would not encourage other users to use the facility as he had found the uncontrolled pedestrian feature to afford little protection and expressed support for its removal. 64.5 The Clerk for Shrewsbury Town Council then outlined their preference for the refuge to be removed in order to assist residents in the west of the town who felt the facility had contributed to increased traffic on the Copthorne and Mount approaches to this area. She commented that relatively few people used the crossing as there were sufficient, safer facilities nearby, and indicated that cyclists front wheels actually protruded into the road due to the small size of the refuge. In referring also to the detrimental effects of the refuge upon smooth traffic flows along the road and the consequential effect upon the visitor experience of the town, she asked Cabinet to support the scrutiny recommendations.