Dunstable Road, Bury Park Consultation Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DUNSTABLE ROAD, BURY PARK CONSULTATION REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 On 4th April 2016 the Council’s Executive heard a technical report regarding safety issues in Dunstable Road, Bury Park. The Executive agreed that a public consultation should be held on the proposals put forward by officers. 1.2 The proposals were a) Extending 20mph zone to Birch Link b) Ban parking on footways throughout the area c) Install a signalised crossing near Bury Park Road d) Install a raised flat topped speed hump at Nadeem Plaza e) Install additional waiting restrictions at junctions including loading ban f) Install coloured surfacing on the existing flat topped speed humps 1.3 This report is as a result of this consultation. 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 A consultation leaflet was designed (copy at Appendix 1). This asked for the public’s opinion on the proposals. It also included an additional question regarding restricting deliveries to shops and businesses to before 10am and after 8pm. To allow analysis of the response people were asked to say whether they were a resident of Bury Park area, business in Bury Park, local resident or other along with their postcode. 2.2 Around 1100 leaflets were hand delivered to all residents within the area shown in Appendix 2. 2.3 The leaflet advertised a staffed public exhibition and gave residents the opportunity to complete the consultation questionnaire on-line or by returning the detachable free post sheet. 2.4 Posters advertising the public exhibition and leaflets were also give out to businesses, community centres and libraries as per the list in Appendix 3. 2.5 An advert was taken out in Luton on Sunday on 22 May 2016. A further full page advert was also taken out in the June edition of Luton Line distributed on 29 May 2016. A press release was issued to further advertise the consultation. 2.6 A staffed public exhibition was held on 4 June 2016 between 12 noon and 4pm at Bury Park Educational Institute where any member of the public could come and speak to officers. Members of the public attending were encouraged/ assisted to complete the consultation questionnaire. 2.7 The consultation opened on 23 May 2016 and closed on 24 June 2016. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 314 responses to the consultation questionnaire along with two letters from Historic England and Holy Ghost Church, Westbourne Road. A spreadsheet of the results is shown at Appendix 4. Extending 20mph zone to Birch Link 3.2 The result of the question ‘do you agree or disagree with the proposal to extend the 20mph zone to Birch Link’ are shown below Agree Disagree Not sure/ No response Don’t know Resident of 45 (75%) 11 (18.3%) 4 (6.7%) 0 Bury Park area Businesses in 20 (83.3%) 3 (12.5%) 0 1 (4.2%) Bury Park Local 111 (69.8%) 29 (18.2%) 12 (7.5%) 7 (4.4%) Residents Other 39 (73.6%) 9 (17%) 3 (5.7%) 2 (3.8%) Not declared 10 (55.6%) 2 (11.1%) 1 (5.6%) 5 (27.8% All 225 (71.7%) 54 (17.2%) 20 (6.4%) 15 (4.8%) 3.3 225 (71.7%) agreed with extending the 20mph zone to Birch Link. 3.4 20 (6%) of the respondents felt that the area was already slow enough and therefore, a 20mph speed limit was not required. Concern was raised about the lack of speed limit enforcement. A further 15 (5%) were concerned about reducing the speed of traffic causing further congestion in the area. Extending the 20mph speed limit to Selbourne Road on Leagrave Road was also requested. Banning footway parking 3.5 The result of the question ‘do you agree or disagree with the proposal to ban footway parking throughout area’ are shown below Agree Disagree Not sure/ No response Don’t know Resident of 49 (81.7%) 8 (13.3%) 3 (5%) 0 Bury Park area Businesses in 14 (58.3%) 8 (33.3%) 1 (4.2%) 1 (4.2%) Bury Park 2 Local 135 (84.9%) 19 (11.9%) 0 5 (3.1%) Residents Other 43 (81.1%) 7 (13.2%) 2 (3.8%) 1 (1.9%) Not declared 10 (55.6%) 2 (11.1%) 0 6 (33.3%) All 251 (79.9%) 44 (14%) 6 (1.9%) 15 (4.1%) 3.6 251 (79.9%) agreed with banning footway parking in the area. Businesses in the Bury Park area were less for this proposal with only 58.3% (14No.) agreeing. 3.7 There was some concern that there was not enough parking in Bury Park and banning parking on footways would drive business away. Displacement parking in residential side streets and on the road causing congestion was also mentioned. Puffin crossing near Bury Park Road 3.8 The result of the question ‘do you agree or disagree with the proposal to install puffin crossing near Bury Park Road’ are shown below Agree Disagree Not sure/ No response Don’t know Resident of 39 (65%) 20 (33.3%) 1 (1.7%) 0 Bury Park area Businesses in 17 (70.8%) 5 (20.8%) 0 2 (8.3%) Bury Park Local 123 (77.4%) 26 (16.4%) 8 (5%) 2 (1.3%) Residents Other 42 (79.2%) 7 (13.2%) 3 (5.7%) 1 (1.9%) Not declared 12 (66.7%) 2 (11.1%) 0 4 (22.2%) All 233 (74.2%) 60 (19.1%) 12 (3.8%) 9 (2.9%) 3.9 233 (74.2%) agreed with installing a puffin crossing near Bury Park Road. 3.10 Nearly 5.5%, 17 respondents were concerned that additional signal crossings would cause more congestion in the area. Some people would prefer zebra crossings rather than signals. There was also comments about the signals were not necessary as humps working well and motorist disobey signals. Raised table at Nadeem Plaza 3.11 The result of the question ‘do you agree or disagree with the proposal install a raised table at Nadeem Plaza’ are shown below 3 Agree Disagree Not sure/ No response Don’t know Resident of 37 (61.7%) 18 (30%) 4 (6.7%) 1 (1.7%) Bury Park area Businesses in 16 (66.7%) 5 (20.8%) 2 (8.3%) 1 (4.2%) Bury Park Local 101 (63.5%) 38 (23.9%) 12 (7.5%) 8 (5%) Residents Other 35 (66%) 11 (20.8%) 6 (11.3%) 1 (1.9%) Not declared 11 (61.1%) 2 (11.1%) 1 (5.6%) 4 (22.2%) All 200 (63.7%) 74 (23.6%) 25 (8%) 15 (4.8%) 3.12 200 (63.7%) agreed with installing a raised table at Nadeem Plaza. Additional waiting restrictions at junctions including loading ban 3.13 The result of the question ‘do you agree or disagree with the proposal to install additional waiting restrictions at junctions including loading ban’ are shown below: Agree Disagree Not sure/ No response Don’t know Resident of 43 (71.7%) 10 (16.7%) 5 (8.3%) 2 (3.3%) Bury Park area Businesses in 14 (58.3%) 6 (25%) 2 (8.3%) 2 (8.3%) Bury Park Local 129 (81.4%) 24 (15.1%) 3 (1.9%) 3 (1.9%) Residents Other 38 (71.7%) 7 (13.2%) 5 (9.4%) 3 (5.7%) Not declared 13 (72.2%) 2 (11.1%) 0 3 (16.7%) All 237 (75.5%) 49 (15.6%) 15 (3.8%) 13 (4.1%) 3.14 237 (75.5%) agreed with installing additional waiting restrictions at junctions including loading ban. Businesses in the Bury Park area were less in favour of this proposal with only 58.3% (14) agreeing. 3.15 Two people felt that there were enough restrictions in the area already. 4 Coloured surfacing at tables 3.16 The result of the question ‘do you agree or disagree with the proposal to install coloured surfacing to the existing speed tables’ are shown below Agree Disagree Not sure/ No response Don’t know Resident of 46 (76.7%) 10 (16.7%) 4 (6.7%) 0 Bury Park area Businesses in 19 (79.2%) 2 (8.3%) 1 (4.2%) 2 (8.3%) Bury Park Local 110 (69.2%) 34 (21.4%) 10(6.3%) 5 (3.1%) Residents Other 42 (79.2%) 6 (11.3%) 3 (5.7%) 2 (3.8%) Not declared 10 (55.6%) 2 (11.1%) 1 (5.6%) 5 (27.8%) All 227 (72.3%) 54 (17.2%) 19 (6.1%) 14 (4.5%) 3.17 227 (72.3%) agreed to installing coloured surfacing to the existing speed tables. 3.18 Just under 5.5% 13No were concerned that the speed tables were confusing to road users who didn’t know who had the right of way and this could be made worse with coloured surfacing. Additional comments included that coloured surfacing was unsightly and also not needed. Restricted deliveries to shops and businesses 3.19 The result of the question ‘do you think that deliveries to shops and businesses in this area should be restricted to before 10am and after 8pm’ are shown below: Agree Disagree Not sure/ No response Don’t know Resident of 48 (80%) 10 (16.7%) 2 (3.3%) 0 Bury Park area Businesses in 13 (54.2%) 9 (37.5%) 1 (4.2%) 1 (4.2%) Bury Park Local 124 (78%) 19 (11.9%) 13 (8.2%) 3 (1.9%) Residents Other 43 (81.1%) 3 (5.7%) 6 (11.3%) 1 (1.9%) Not declared 13 (55.6%) 1 (5.6%) 0 4 (22.2%) 5 All 241 (76.8%) 42 (13.4%) 22 (6.1%) 9 (10.1%) 3.20 241 (76.8%) agreed with the proposal to restrict deliveries to shops and business to before 10am and after 8pm.