TRAFFIC MEASURES IN AVETON GIFFORD - NOTES FROM PARISH COUNCIL MEETINGS AND MINUTES.
The whole process started well over 7 years ago, led initially by John Coates. Work had been done in 2003 to reduce traffic flow through the village from Tree Corner, and additional safety measures outside the school, but the consultations the parish council had at that time with DCC did not achieve the changes and outcomes that they all had agreed. (DCC changed the plans at the last moment apparently because of costs, but didn’t tell AGPC.) There was always dissatisfaction after this because AG didn’t get the improvements that were needed and agreed. A report in 2008 mentions discussions re Tree Corner involving Tim Abrahall and Jenny Reynolds. John Coates was also involved in many discussions and meetings with members of DCC Highways team, but usually met on his own – no notes from this time, but his reports to the PC should be found in the minutes. (Also no notes remain from the village consultation he conducted later)
In 2009 a parish council sub-committee was set up to liaise with DCC Highways, led by Steph McClean McTaggart with Tim Abrahall, Sarah Harcus and Ros Brousson. This followed representations to the Parish Council from residents in Fore St anxious to introduce something a)to reduce the speed down Fore St, or somehow provide better safety for pedestrians, b) to stop the use of village as “rat-run” from Salcombe to A38, and to get traffic to use the bypass instead. Not long after this, with particular concern over speeding at pub end of Fore St. residents set up a self- help hand-held traffic speed monitoring group; Dinah Ashton led this and found approx 13 volunteers – about 5 years ago, but it was never implemented as at that time couldn’t get Police backing, and it fizzled out.
Eventually the committee got an acknowledgement that the work done in 2003 had not been what AG wanted, wasn’t effective, and in some places was worse. Therefore even though a lot of money had been spent in AG in 2003, it was also acknowledged that more ought to be spent to put mistakes right, and to achieve what had always been required for traffic calming and a deterrent to the rat run. (Nick Colton, Highways Dept., negotiated this.) In 2011 the PC was told that both Fore St and Tidal Road improvements had passed preliminary approval with a provisional budget of £60,000 covering both, and would go on to the waiting list. Fore St proposals were budgeted at £40,000 and proposed for 2014-15. (There were 3 areas covered in this application - Tree Corner and Fore St. by the school, pavements and parking through Fore Street, and Fore St. by the Fisherman’s Rest). However in order to get something achieved rather than lose the whole scheme with a proposal that would be too extensive, in 2012 it was agreed to shelve Tidal Road work altogether and scale down the Fore St application because of the reduction in DCC’s own budget. In early 2014 the PC received confirmation that the final budget allowed for AG Fore St was £25,000, and that work had to be finished by the end of that financial year. (This budget was to include all expenses, including designers, modelling by engineers where required, and fees for applications and advertising of proposed traffic regulation changes; thus the budget for the work itself would be less than the allotted £25K).
Also 2 consultations during the above period – one an effective fact finding exercise, the second to put forward suggestions gathered from the above. In the 2012 Parish Appraisal, 93% responded to the question regarding traffic calming in Fore St. 57% responded that it was needed.
SUGGESTED CHANGES.
Various suggestions/requests have come out of ongoing meetings, discussions and consultation. These have all been put to various DCC representatives in the course of asking them for a suitable scheme. Suggestions include -
Making the pinch points at either end of Fore St more of a deterrent to traffic entering, thus encouraging use of the bypass or alternative route to/from A38. Various ways of doing this discussed over the years, and it is still the aim. Recent solution put fwd by DCC/PC at Tree Corner end - to increase the build out from Tree Corner cottages coupled with changing the traffic priority at Tree Corner therefore making it much more difficult to turn left into Fore St from Church Lane. However on modelling it was found that this build out would prevent the bus turning into Fore St once it had stopped at the Tree Corner bus stop. In order for this scheme to work would have to move the position of the bus stop – and nowhere else for it to go. Therefore that scheme has been dropped by DCC. Traffic restriction – table – outside school proposed instead of the above. Triple purpose – effective speed restrictor, a walkway for school crossing and safety, and coupled with other speed restrictors through the rest of Fore St and the existing pinch point outside the pub this would form a deterrent for the short cut through the village. (Old traffic measures outside the school are conflicting and a mess – need to be corrected anyway) DCC suggestion. Discussions about changing the priority at Tree Corner once again which many felt to have been wrong – suggestion to change it back to original. Incorporated into discussions about the pinch point here. Move/renew signs to indicate that traffic from Church Lane should go on up to the bypass, and no through route through village. Can’t be seen in hedge. DCC agreed and will bring forward. One way traffic suggested. DCC said no – evidence shows it would increase rather than decrease speed. Retractable bollards sited on Tree Corner, with only bus and emergency vehicles having mechanism to lower them. Dismissed by DCC as extremely expensive, and also because there was no turning space for vehicles which had got that far and had to turn back. Access only suggested. Even to the extent of having a physical barrier in the middle and access in from both ends to a turning point beside the block. DCC – no. Access thro’ Fore St from either end by weight limit for example, but permitting deliveries/bus/emergency services. Impossible to monitor, and impossible to enforce. DCC say no. No buses and heavy traffic through village at all suggested. Bus stops to be sited at either end of village or on bypass instead. Can’t prevent bus use as need it for elderly and to keep village in sustainable category. Can’t prevent heavy traffic as it might be big removal van etc. PC said no to this. (DCC queried why we allowed the buses – their feeling was that if buses didn’t come through the village at all but had alternative stops by the bypass, then traffic calming would be much easier to implement because we wouldn’t continually have to keep the Bus Co happy). On-Road parking along Fore St to be created on alternate sides to make traffic slower by weaving way through. Residents strenuously objected to any parking changes. Also Bus Co allegedly not happy if route not straight – and practically, it would be hard to prevent extra parking sneaking in at the end of each permitted block of spaces thus causing bus hold ups. Unless we had unlimited traffic warden time impossible to do. DCC and PC said no. As an alternative to the above, planters/raised beds, bollards or build outs on Fore St also suggested on alternate sides instead of alternate on-road parking - to make traffic slower as above. DCC said no. Much more on road parking down length of Fore St on one side only to effectively make single carriageway. Could only do in certain areas though, as road not wide enough in certain places, and also needed to leave some spaces for oncoming traffic to pass or to back into. Residents objected overwhelmingly. PC and DCC said no. Parking on Fore St proved to be a particularly contentious subject – it was decided to leave it as it is. However, to solve the problem of traffic snarl-ups involving larger vehicles (bus in particular) from badly parked cars - a suggestion that planters be used to designate the ends of each permitted parking area (as suggested above), so that extra cars couldn’t just sneak on to the end of permitted parking spaces. DCC said absolutely no to all raised beds or planters– they would not sanction because a hard restriction like that too close to, or on the highway, would not be permitted. Physical speed restrictors such as Sleeping Policemen suggested years ago, also speed bumps/humps/tables/cushions. Initially told we couldn’t have them at any price, but the design has now modified, and are permitted tables and cushions. DCC say yes. Something to create several pinch points down Fore St instead of bumps, eg. pavement build-outs with raised beds. DCC – pavement build outs too costly, not within budget. Also recently advised, these cause as much anxiety as cushions. Also practically – a pinch point that allows bus or ambulance through would have no speed reduction effect on most cars. DCC said no. More bollards/less bollards. More have been suggested by residents. DCC unwilling to go down that route as they would like to remove the ones we do have! Residents here want to keep the ones we have on Fore St as it is felt they effectively provide a place of safety, even though originally we had thought they were not liked because couldn’t fit push chair behind. However recent feed back is that they are wanted. DCC agreed to keep them, and plans to write “road narrows” or something of that sort to comply with necessary signage standards to indicate pinch point there, so might help to reinforce speed reduction. Better pavement down one side of Fore St - the preferred option was that the existing narrow pavement should be widened. However many of those pavements in front of houses are privately owned, and not part of Highway. Made it practically very difficult to do because of the consequent shared ownership – not just negotiating the installation, but ongoing maintenance and permissions if repairs needed etc . Also cost was v high and took up disproportionate amount of even the original proposed budget because of creating a new gulley with new drainage to link in to existing, and coping stones the full length of Fore St. DCC said no for both the above reasons. A virtual pavement as in E Charleton, (and is often brought up by residents as a solution). This was the alternative to the above suggestion as it would have only required the use of a different coloured tarmac surface – very much cheaper solution. However - apparently not doing those any more as a concern re litigious nightmare if someone is hit by passing traffic. The onus is on the person using the pavement , not the driver; the assumption by pedestrians is that traffic should avoid them if they are on the pavement, whereas pedestrians ought still to avoid the traffic just as much as they would without the virtual pavement. It doesn’t have the same status as a proper pavement, so can’t assume it’s a place of safety, because both in practice and liability-wise, it isn’t...... (Also - just because DCC used to install some traffic measures is no reason that they now will, as EU and national policies based on experience and effectiveness have now changed) DCC said no for above reasons. A virtual cycle path down Fore St which would act in the same way as a virtual pavement. Highways wouldn’t have been able to set this up, would have had to come out of a dedicated budget for cycle schemes. It was a suggestion to try to get more to be done with the “calming” budget – could have helped in that part of the village, thus freeing up money for other measures – eg remodelling the pinch point at Tree Corner etc. However, potentially had the negative outcome of having pedestrians using the path if it became popular with cyclists. DCC said no. Better speed limit. Highways Dept acknowledged 4+ years ago that the speed signs didn’t conform to correct guidelines for the 20mph speed limit, but no will to change this at the time. Since then EU guidelines and Police attitudes have changed, and DCC will make alterations to make village 20mph speed restriction conform to standards. They suggest better signage to advertise reduced speed limits, perhaps use of speed limits on the road surface (“roundels” ) or lit up signs along Fore St on posts, but also will have to install different signs on road entrances to Fore St, eg up Baker’s Hill. DCC said speed limit going to be addressed somehow, even if roundels aren’t used on Fore St instead of cushions. Put traffic lights back. Serious suggestion. But retrograde step, and not taken seriously. DCC would not do. Flashing speed signals. DCC – very unwilling. Have latterly had to remove some of these as distracting to motorists and hated by immediate neighbours. Seriously expensive. Don’t think evidence backs up that they are particularly effective either. DCC said no. Rumble strips – too noisy and of doubtful effectiveness. DCC said no. Cobbles and different paving – suggestion from experience of similar villages in France where cobbles seen to be effective – uneven surface reduces speed. Too noisy and far too expensive. DCC said no.
A TIMELINE OF OUR TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAMME .
TAKEN FROM EXTRACTS FROM PARISH COUNCIL MINUTES 2002 – 2010 (Minutes before this time were not available, although traffic speeding problems are known to be a problem prior to that date. Minutes from 2011 to the present day can be downloaded on the same parish council web page.)
4 March 2002: Responses to a questionnaire in mAGpie were good. Results to be passed to John Halliday (South Hams Highways Dept).
8 April: J Halliday letter informing PC that he will produce a ‘slightly modified’ plan from results of survey. 13 May: Speed signage in Fore Street, Bridge End, Icy Park and Tidal Road discussed.
2 September: Following a meeting with J Halliday, options were: change priorities at Tree Corner, more 30mph signs, pinch points, possibly reduce speed limit in Fore St to 20mph
7 October 02: Clerk to write to J Halliday requesting update
4 November 02: Several measures discussed, no record of work done.
3 February 2003: Traffic calming work (unstipulated) due to start in February.
7 April 03: Complaints re work (unstipulated)
12 May 03: Sir Simon Day (DC Councillor) has arranged site meeting on 27 May with Highways to discuss how measures could be improved.
2 June 33: Ben Hubbard (Ivybridge Local Services Group) attended, and explained measures as follows:
New road layout marking ahead signs – 2 at Tree Corner and 1 at roundabout by pub, additional SLOW marking The VILLAGE ONLY sign to be brought forward so that drivers can see more clearly coming from the church Bushes by bus shelter on Tree Corner cut back to improve visibility Remarking of road signs where they have been taken out by various works in village Some large stacking signs removed and replaced with flashing SCHOOL signs. Double yellow lines outside the Chapel LIMITED WAITING sign outside Brook Court to be removed, and better marking to show entrance to Brook Court Bollards – 9 will be removed and remaining 4 left The build-out by the pub will be further up the hill, also a 20mph sign and traffic priority sign to be put in. An AVON BRIDGE sign to be put up on the by-pass to deter lorries bound for Avon Bridge Machinery from coming through village
7 July 03: Hoped that changes discussed with Highways following a site visit, will soon be in place. Comments from residents that vehicles still speeding.
1 September 03: Work started
3 November 03: Snagging list requested by Highways, but work cannot be funded until next financial year
10 May 2004: ‘still complaints’ re traffic speed through village. Clerk spoke to Ben Hubbard who said no more funding was available this financial year.
7 June 04: Chairman said the issue was now passed to Sir Simon Day (DCC). J Halliday suggested PC write to all farmers in the area and ask them to use the bypass. Clerk also to write to Avon Bridge Machinery with same request.
5 July 04: Letter sent to J Halliday ref road markings at Tree Corner, speed survey, bridge to have survey and 30mph limit. 6 December 04: Residents ‘still’ complaining about traffic speed along Fore St. 20mph not being observed. Other measures were promised but not implemented (no detail given). Clerk to write to Highways again.
7 February 2005: Clerk was informed that it is not possible to provide a speed sensor. Therefore a manual count and recording of speed needed. Await flashing lights by school, and curb on raised area by pub to be painted white.
6 February 2006: Complaint of heavy lorries through village centre. Clerk to raise with Highways.
8 January 2007: Suggestion of 7.5t weight limit through village (previously made in 2003) to be placed before J Halliday for re-consideration. Clerk to contact.
5 February 07: J Halliday replied that request is lodged and awaits funding.
NB No Minutes held for April – December 2008 incl
1 June 2009: Discussion re
Increase pavement to min. 90cm width Build out Tree Corner Try to get sat nav directions changed, so A38 traffic re-directed Alter signage into village “No entry except for access” 6 July 09: Public consultation event should be arranged. Following a meeting with J Halliday, proposal to extend double yellow lines towards Icy Park signs at Tree Corner to encourage drivers to use bypass speed monitoring to decide what further action to be taken
These were forwarded by DC Councillor William Mumford to George Bryant (Highways) for comment
2 November 09: Kingsbridge police planning to carry out speed checks in village. Children to be involved to question any driver caught.
7 December 09: DCC indicated no funding for any further work in the village. A ‘school watch’ operation was conducted on the bridge, 1 person was stopped and interviewed by children.
1 March 2010: Change to road markings at Tree Corner.
15 March 10: Speed gun training
29 March 10: Chairman (J Coates) spoke to First National buses, with agreement to change to one- way. A suggestion made to remove some double yellow lines in order to allow parking on Fore St and thus help slow traffic.
24 May 10: DC Cllr Mumford reported that there was no funding available.
21 June 10: Devon Highways to be contacted again.