Cab.5.3.2009111.4
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cab.5.3.200911 1.4 BARNSLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL This matter is not a Key Decision within the Council's definition and has not been included in the relevant Forward Plan Report of Executive Director, Development Directorate CHURCH FARM ESTATE, MONK BRETTON - PROPOSED TRAFFIC CALMING - OBJECTIONS 1. Purpose of Report 1.1 The purpose of this report is to discuss the letters of objection received regarding the above proposed traffic calming, which has been recently advertised and to seek approval for installation of the speed cushions. 2. Recommendation 2.1 That the objections to the proposed speed cushions be considered and set aside and the installation of speed cushions, as described in the report, be approved. 3. Introduction 3.1 To summarise the previous report, which was approved by cabinet in November 2008 (cab.26.1 1.2008/4), Littleworth Lane one-way was implemented in June 2005 and complaints were received from residents of Church Farm Estate regarding the alleged increase in volume and speed of traffic travelling through the estate. Surveys were carried out which confirmed an increase in volume of approximately 50%, although average traffic speeds were not found to be excessive. 3.2 As the increase in traffic volume was of concern to the residents, Local Members asked for traffic calming measures to be considered in order to deter drivers from using the estate roads as a short cut. 3.3 There were no objections to the final proposals for installation of speed cushions on Long Causeway, Bishops Way and Monks Way from Local Members, local area forum and the emergency services. Statutory consultation was carried out between the dates of 28th November - December, 2008. Four letters of objection were received; three from residents of Monks Way and one from a resident of Canons Way. A further letter was received during the statutory consultation period, but the author did not clearly object to the proposals and remained anonymous and, therefore, could not be replied to. The letters all express doubts as to the likely effectiveness of the speed cushions in their proposed form and there are some references to the potential noise and environmental pollution from vehicles negotiating them. The letters also make requests to consider other methods of traffic calming. Letters have been sent to the four known objectors explaining the reasons for the speed cushions and that they meet current design standards and are considered the most appropriate traffic calming feature for this location. Unfortunately objections have not been withdrawn. A summary of the objections and replies (where appropriate) are shown in Appendix B. 4. Proposal and Justification 4.1 That the objections to the proposed installation of speed cushions on the Church Farm Estate be considered and set aside and the installation of speed cushions be approved. 4.2 The justification for the speed cushions is that their installation will encourage a progressive reduction in the number and speed of vehicles and will generally improve road safety in the area. 5. Consideration of Alternative Approaches 5.1 Alternative approaches are considered in Section 5 and Appendix E in the previous report of November 2008. 6. Local Area Implications 6.1 It is considered that local area implications were adequately dealt with in Section 6 of the previous report of November 2008. 7. Compatibility with European Convention on Human Rights 7.1 It is considered that Human Rights implications were adequately dealt with in Section 7 of the previous report of November 2008. 8. Promoting Equality and Diversity and Social Inclusion 8.1 There were no equality, diversity or social inclusion issues to be discussed in connection with speed cushions in the previous report. 9. Reduction of Crime and Disorder 9.1 It is considered that reduction of crime and disorder issues were adequately dealt with in the previous report. 10.. Conservation of Biodiversity 10.1 There were no conservation of biodiversity issues to be discussed in connection with speed cushions in the previous report. 11. Risk Management Issues, including Health and Safety 11 .1 There is a risk of challenge under the Human Rights Act but it is not considered a serious risk for the reasons described in Section 7 of the previous report. 12. Financial Implications 12.1 Financial implications were dealt with in Section 12 of the previous report. 12.2 Phase 1 (Long Causeway) will be undertaken in financial year 2008-09 and Phase 2 (Bishops Way and Monks Way) will be undertaken in 2009-10. 13. Employee Implications 13.1 There were no employee implications to be discussed in connection with speed cushions in the previous report. 14. Glossary 14.1 0DM Regulations - Construction Design and Management Regulations 2007. 15. List of ADDend ices 15.1 Appendix B Summary of objections and replies 15.2 Appendix C Consultation responses from Local Members, emergency services, etc. 15.3 Appendix D Plans B, C and D - Church Farm Estate, Monk Bretton - Traffic Calming Proposals 16. Background Papers 16.1 Church Farm Estate Traffic Calming project file held in Highways and Engineering, Westgate Plaza One offices* * Not available for inspection; contains exempt information, Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Part 1, Paragraphs 1 and 2. Office Contact: Paul Bray Tel.No. : (01226) 772151 Date: 9th January, 2009 l9 Financial Implications/Consultations f€h1V4. 0, ANNEX CHURCH FARM ESTATE, MONK BRETTON - PROPOSED TRAFFIC CALMING Consultations (a) Financial Implications The Financial Services Manager has been consulted on behalf of the Director of Finance and has set out the financial implications in Section 12 of the previous report. (b) Employee Implications Design work and site supervision will be carried out by Highways and Engineering staff. The works will be carried out by BMBC Engineering Services. (c) Legal Implications The Borough Secretary has advertised the proposals under the Highways Act 1980. Letters of objection have been received, have been responded to and are included in Appendix B of the main report. (d) Policy Implications There are no new policy implications arising from the proposals which are in accordance with current design guidelines. (e) ICT Implications There are no ICT implications arising from the proposals. (f) Local Members Details in Section 3 of the previous report of November 2008. Copies of responses/comments in Appendix C of the main report. (g) Health and Safety Considerations The proposals are designed to improve road safety. The design has been undertaken in accordance with Health and Safety at Work/CDM Regulations. (h) Property Implications There are no property implications arising from the proposals. (i) Implications for Other Services There are no implications arising for other services from the proposals. I (j) Implications for Service Users Approval for statutory consultation was requested in the previous report and 28th 19th was carried out between November - December, 2008. (k) Communications Implications The Council's press office will be consulted concerning the issuing of press releases. Any decision will be published prior to implementation. APPENDIX B CHURCH FARM ESTATE PROPOSED TRAFFIC CALMING SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED AND REPLIES SENT NAME & ADDRESS REASON(S) FOR OBJECTION BMBC RESPONSE Speed cushions inconvenient. 20mph zone rejected as they Mr Allsopp, Would prefer 20mph zone, usually have calming features 19 Canons Way, similar to Athersley South, unacceptable for Monk Bretton trialled first. buses/emergency vehicles. Bus companies/emergency services object to anything other than speed cushions. The 20mph zones without features (Athersley South) are trials and no results are currently available to verify their effectiveness. Police object to 20mph zones without features because they are not self- enforcing. Speed cushions inconvenient. Rejected 20mph zone for Mr B. Dolan, Suggested several alternatives:- reasons as stated above. Road 8 Monks Way, 20mph zone, road closure, closure would move / Monk Bretton residents access only, remove exacerbate problems on Parish one-way from Littleworth Lane Way. Enforcement of 'residents' access only' impossible to enforce. No current proposals to remove one-way from Littleworth Lane Does not think speed cushions Speed cushions have been V. Homer, work. Increased noise & air successfully used throughout 10 Monks Way, pollution. Would prefer Monks the Borough for several years. Monk Bretton Way making one-way uphill from The possible increase in noise Parish Way plus No Entry and pollution has not been signing at junction with Long proven. Explained that one-way Causeway would drive traffic problems onto previously quiet roads, one-way would inconvenience many residents of Church Farm requiring access to Lundwood. Reiterated that speed cushions are only calming feature acceptable to bus companies / emergency services Cited increased noise I The possible increase in noise Mr D. M. Shaw, environmental pollution. and pollution has not been 9 Monks Way, Suggested alternatives :- proven. Monk Bretton Littleworth Lane one-way be Relocation of one-way rejected relocated, close Monks Way / in previous correspondence for Parish Way junction, make because it would inconvenience Monks Way residents' access Church Farm residents who only, revoke one-way on wanted access to Littleworth Littleworth Lane Lane schools and Pontefract Road and that the relocated one-way would be likely to be breached on a regular basis. A previous point closure had been removed for