NOTICE OF INDIVIDUAL EXECUTIVE MEMBER DECISION

Transcription

1 NOTICE OF INDIVIDUAL EXECUTIVE MEMBER DECISION ITEM NO IMD 2008/38 TITLE Traffic Regulation Order Report Saffron Close and Amber Close, Earley Proposed Waiting Restrictions Budges Road and Hughes Road, Wokingham Proposed waiting restrictions Nash Grove Lane, Wokingham Proposed 7.5 tonne weight restriction and width restriction Hermitage Drive, Twyford; Erleigh Court Gardens, Earley; Chequers Way and Western Avenue, Woodley Proposed Waiting Restrictions DECISION TO BE MADE BY DATE AND TIME OF DECISION VENUE REPORT TO BE PUBLISHED ON Keith Baker, Executive Member for Highways and Transport Friday 17 October 2008 at 10.00am Place and Neighbourhoods Meeting Room 9 October 2008`

2 INDIVIDUAL EXECUTIVE MEMBER DECISION REFERENCE IMD 2008/38 TRO TITLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY ON VENUE WARDS REPORT PREPARED BY Traffic Regulation Orders Saffron Close and Amber Close, Earley Proposed Waiting Restrictions Nash Grove Lane, Wokingham Proposed 7.5 tonne weight restriction and width restriction Budge s Road and Hughes Road, Wokingham Proposed waiting restrictions Hermitage Drive, Twyford; Erleigh Court Gardens, Earley; Chequers Way and Western Avenue, Woodley Proposed Waiting Restrictions Executive Member for Highways and Transport 17 October 2008 at 10.00am Place and Neighbourhoods Meeting Room Bulmershe and Whitegates, Evendons, Maiden Erlegh, Norreys, Sonning and Twyford Chris Redfern Traffic and Transportation REASONS FOR DECISION AND SUMMARY To inform the Executive Member for Highways and Transport of progress on current and new Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to enable the progression of the schemes. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Executive Member for Highways and Transport approves: 1) Saffron Close and Amber Close, Earley a) to proceed with either Option 1 or 2 as detailed in this report, to proceed and implement the final proposal or take no further action. b) that the objectors be informed accordingly. c) that no public inquires be held. All as shown on drawing number 5049/449/C 2) Budges Road and Hughes Road, Wokingham a) The introduction of single yellow lines and double yellow lines on Budges Road and Hughes Road, Wokingham. b) To proceed with the necessary procedure for a Traffic Regulation Order, including advertising and consultation. All as shown on drawings numbered 5049/491/1, 5049/491/2 and 5049/491/3. 3) Nashgrove Lane, Wokingham a) The implementation of a 7.5 tonne weight limit and a 6 foot 6 inch width restriction on Nash Grove Lane with exemption clauses for vehicles that require access to the properties on the northern section of Nash Grove Lane, and for agricultural vehicles.

3 b) The revocation of the existing Edneys Hill and Evendons Lane 6 foot 6 inches width restriction Traffic Regulation Order and incorporate it into the new Order. c) The advertisement and formal consultation of the proposal, d) Consideration of any objections which may be received, e) If no objections are received to authorise the introduction of the necessary Traffic Regulation Order. 4) Hermitage Drive, Twyford; Erleigh Court Gardens, Earley; Chequers Way and Western Avenue, Woodley a) The installation of an additional length of single yellow line to complement the existing Polehampton C of E Infant School keep clear marking on Hermitage Drive, Twyford as shown on drawing number 5049/497 b) The installation of an additional of double yellow line waiting restrictions on the sharp bend on Erleigh Court Gardens, Earley as shown on drawing number 5049/494. c) The installation of of double yellow lines on Chequers Way, Woodley close to its junction with Howth Drive as shown on drawing number 5049/495. d) The extension the existing length of double yellow lines at the junction of Western Avenue with Reading Road, Woodley as shown on drawing number 5049/496. e) The statutory advertisement and consultation upon the proposals to introduce waiting restrictions on Hermitage Drive, Twyford; Erleigh Court Gardens, Earley; Chequers Way and Western Avenue, Woodley as shown on drawings 5049/494, 5049/495, 5049/496 and 5049/497. f) Any objections received, being reported back to the Executive Member for Highways and Transport for further consideration. g) If no objections are received to approve the introduction of the Traffic Regulation Order. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Revenue Current Financial Year (Year 1) How much will it Cost / Save? 2,200 2,400 1,700 1,500 Is there sufficient budget (or grant funding) available? if not quantify the Supplementary Estimate OR if savings, also quantify. Yes Saffron Close and Amber Close, Earley Proposed Waiting Restrictions to be funded from the 2008/2009 revenue allocation for Highway Improvements schemes. Yes Budge s Road and Hughes Road, Wokingham Proposed waiting restrictions to be funded from the 2008/2009 revenue allocation for Highway Improvements schemes. Yes Nash Grove Lane, Wokingham Proposed 7.5 tonne weight restriction and width restriction to be funded from the 2008/2009 revenue allocation for Highway Improvements schemes. Yes Hermitage Drive, Twyford; Erlegh Court Gardens, Earley;

4 Chequers Way and Western Avenue, Woodley Proposed Waiting Restrictions to be funded from the 2008/2009 revenue allocation for Highway Improvements schemes. Next Financial Year (Year 2) Following Financial Year (Year 3) Capital Current Financial Year (Year 1) Next Financial Year (Year 2) Following Financial Year (Year 3) Years 4 10 (10 year capital vision) 0 Yes. No future financial implications. 0 Yes. No future financial implications. How much will it Cost / Save? Is there sufficient budget (or grant funding) available? if not quantify the Supplementary Estimate OR if savings, also quantify. 0 No financial implications. 0 No future financial implications. 0 No future financial implications. 0 No future financial implications. Other relevant financial information relevant to the Recommendation/Decision Costs of the above mentioned schemes will be met through the existing Revenue Budget. The schemes do not have any other financial implications. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES General Manager Business Services Graham Ebers Financial Implications Approved. Monitoring Officer Susanne Nelson-Wehrmeyer no response Leader of the Council Cllr David Lee no response Town and Parish Councils: Refer to section included on separate page for each TRO proposed. Local Ward Members: Refer to section included on separate page for each TRO proposed. Reasons for considering the report in Part 2 N/A List of Background Papers Copies of advertisements, consultation letters and letters of objection. Held by Rob McDonnell Senior Traffic Service Place and Neighbourhood Management Engineer Services Telephone No rob.mcdonnell@wokingham.gov.uk Date 8 th August 2008 Version No. 1.0 NB All reports seek to identify environmental, community safety, customer care

5 and equal opportunities implications. Consultation with residents and organisations which has or is about to take place, will also be reported. SUPPORTING INFORMATION An explanation of each of the proposed TROs is on the following pages. In addition Appendix A sets out the comments/objections received. Alternative Options Considered, if any Do nothing. ISSUES Risk Management The Council is managing the highway environment by carrying out regular reviews on existing / consideration of new Traffic Regulation Orders around the Borough in accordance with our agreed objectives. Impact on Equality Neutral impact on Equality Impact on Sustainability Mainly a neutral impact but with respect to the waiting restriction proposals it will meet the needs of the local residents Council s Priorities Keeping the Borough moving is one of the Council s priorities and this will aid the achievement of this priority. Saffron Close and Amber Close, Earley Proposed Waiting Restrictions Background 1 At their meeting in June 2007, Members of Wokingham Borough Council s Executive agreed to proceed with a proposal for waiting restrictions in Saffron Close and Amber Close, Earley to address the issue of recurrent commuter parking. This would require Officers to amend and reduce the extent of the restrictions of the previously consulted upon proposal so that it would only address the safety considerations of the roads in question. 2 The proposal was subsequently amended by Officers and on 10 th January 2008 was sent out to formal consultation, however five letters of objection and two letters of support were received. It should be noted that all but one of the responses received clearly stated they would prefer a greater extent of restrictions as they fear this would result in commuter vehicles being displaced to outside their frontages. 3 Further to the feedback received during the consultation and a number of site visits, the original proposal was then amended for a final time and can be seen on drawing 5049/449/C. This proposal seeks to offer the extent of restrictions as preferred by the vast majority of residents of Saffron Close and Amber Close. Latest Update 4 At a meeting on 30 th May 2008 the decision was made to conduct a formal consultation on the final proposal for restrictions, and the proposal as shown on drawing 5049/449/C was subsequently advertised. The formal consultation period ended on 17 th July 2008 and during the consultation 11 letters of support and 2 letters of objection were received. These are detailed in Appendix A to this report. 5 The letters show a strong level of support for the introduction of the scheme, but consideration must be given to the concerns raised. However, as agreed in the last report on this subject, this is to be the final consultation the Council will be

6 undertaking and if the objections are considered substantive, consideration should be given to taking no further action. 6 A decision needs to be made as to which Option should be progressed: Option 1 Proceed and implement the final proposal; as shown on drawing 5049/449/C, with double yellow lines around the junctions and turning head and further lengths of restricted waiting (single yellow lines) further into Amber Close and for the remainder of Saffron Close, and inform the objectors accordingly. This would acknowledge the large majority in favour of implementing restrictions to address the ongoing commuter parking related problems in Saffron Close and Amber Close, while having been designed to cause as minimal disruption to residents as possible. Option 2 Take no further action. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES Ward: Maiden Erlegh Town or Parish Council: Earley Town Council - Our Councillors have consistently been in favour of parking restrictions in Amber Close/Saffron Close, and are in support of the proposals now put forward. Local Ward Members: David Chopping no response Chris Edmunds no response Paul Swaddle no response Financial implications 7 These works are estimated to cost: Advert Cost 1,000 Engineering Cost 1,200 Total 2,200 and can be funded from the 2008/2009 Revenue allocation for Highway Improvement Schemes. Recommendation 8 It is recommended that the Executive Member for Highways and Transport approves: 1) to proceed with either Option 1 or 2 as detailed in this report (to proceed and implement the final proposal or take no further action). 2) that the objectors be informed accordingly. 3) that no public inquires be held. All as shown on drawing number 5049/449/C Please Note: Executive Member s decision is Option 1. Budge s Road and Hughes Road, Wokingham Proposed Waiting Restrictions 9 A request has been received from the governors of Keep Hatch School, Wokingham to investigate the possibility of installing additional waiting restrictions in the roads surrounding Keep Hatch School, specifically Budges Road and Hughes Road. This proposal was also strongly recommended in the 2007/2008 School Travel Plan. The proposed extents can be seen on the attached plans, drawings 5049/491/1, 5049/491/2 and 5049/491/3.

7 10 The main aim of these proposed waiting restrictions is to improve the safety of the journey to school for children and accompanying parents (including many with pushchairs) by keeping the area around the side entrances to the school clear of parked vehicles. This is important as these are the most popular chosen points to cross the roads. 11 It is hoped that the implementation of these restrictions would not have too detrimental an effect on residents of the roads in question as frontages where lines are proposed all have off street parking. In addition, the restrictions would only be in effect during school peak hours. The proposed restrictions are also located around bends in the roads where, by parking inappropriately, motorists cause visibility issues for other road users. 12 There is already a School Keep Clear marking on Budges Road, however this is currently not enforceable as there is no legal document to support it or the necessary accompanying sign plates. This new Traffic Regulation Order will allow Thames Valley Police to enforce these restrictions in the future. Accident Data 13 In the last three year period, there has been one personal injury accident in Budge s Road: Date Details Casualties Severity 13/10/2006 Car 1 travelling northwest to east collided off side of pedal cycle 2 travelling west east overtaking parked car. 1 Slight 14 Financial Implications The works on Budge s Road and Hughes Road are expected to cost: Advert Cost 900 Engineering Cost 1,500 Total 2,400 SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES Ward: Norreys Town or Parish Council: Wokingham Town Council no response Local Ward Members: Alistair Auty no response Lee Gordon-Walker no response David Lee no response 15 Recommendation It is recommended that the Executive Member for Highways and Transport approves: 1) The introduction of single yellow lines and double yellow lines on Budges Road and Hughes Road, Wokingham. 2) To proceed with the necessary procedure for a Traffic Regulation Order, including advertising and consultation. All as shown on drawings numbered 5049/491/1, 5049/491/2 and 5049/491/3.

8 Nash Grove Lane, Wokingham Proposed 7.5 tonne Weight Restriction and Width Restriction 16 A request has been received from Wokingham Borough Council s Countryside Services to consider the possibility of implementing an environmental weight limit on Nash Grove Lane, Wokingham and extending the existing width limit on Evendons Lane to include Nash Grove Lane. 17 The main aim of these proposals is to decrease the need of repairs on Nash Grove Lane, as currently the use by HGVs results in the unsurfaced road being frequently damaged, leading to repair works taking place four times annually to reinstate the surface. These repairs are mainly caused by an excess of public vehicular traffic. Some repairs will be required, however, as residents will also need to use the stretch of road in question. 18 This is an area of concern as large vehicles are using Nash Grove Lane, Wokingham, and its surrounding roads, as a cut through to Barkham Ride, Finchampstead. The section of road in question is not adopted highway, but is a Byway Open to All Traffic, by definition a byway is mainly used for pedestrian and equestrian use, and the occasional car. 19 The proposal is to implement a 7.5 tonne weight limit and a 6 foot 6 inch width restriction. This would make it unlawful for vehicles in excess of these dimensions to travel down the section of Nash Grove Lane and thus help maintain the surface over a longer period of time. The proposal will include exemption clauses for vehicles that require access to the properties on the northern section of Nash Grove Lane, and for agricultural vehicles. 20 This proposal would include the revocation of the existing Edneys Hill and Evendons Lane 6 foot 6 inches width restriction Traffic Regulation Order and incorporate it into the new Order. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES Ward: Evendons Town or Parish Council: Wokingham Town Council no response Local Ward Members: Chris Bowring no response Dianne King no response Denis Morgan no response Financial Implications 21 The works on Nash Grove Lane are expected to cost: Advert Cost 900 Engineering Cost 800 Total 1,700 Recommendation 22 It is recommended that the Executive Member for Highways and Transport approves: 1) the implementation of a 7.5 tonne weight limit and a 6 foot 6 inch width restriction on Nash Grove Lane with exemption clauses for vehicles that require access to the properties on the northern section of Nash Grove Lane, and for agricultural vehicles.

9 2) the revocation of the existing Edneys Hill and Evendons Lane 6 foot 6 inches width restriction Traffic Regulation Order and incorporate it into the new Order. 3) the advertisement and formal consultation of the proposal, 4) consideration of any objections which may be received, 5) if no objections are received to authorise the introduction of the necessary Traffic Regulation Order. Hermitage Drive, Twyford; Erleigh Court Gardens, Earley; Chequers Way and Western Avenue, Woodley Proposed Waiting Restrictions 23 Requests have been received from a number of residents and Councillors for the introduction of localised waiting restrictions. Investigations have been undertaken to ascertain the feasibility of introducing such restrictions, and the following proposals were based on these investigations. Hermitage Drive, Twyford 24 A request has been received from Polehampton C of E Infant School for an additional length of single yellow line restriction to complement the existing school keep clear marking on Hermitage Drive. This is a narrow section of Hermitage Drive and will address the current indiscriminate parking by parents and the subsequent congestion caused. The proposal will ensure vehicles do not park on the narrow unsuitable bend during school peak hours and can be seen on drawing number 5049/497. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES Ward: Twyford Town or Parish Council: Twyford Parish Council - Twyford Parish Council have considered the proposal for Hermitage Drive and do not have any comment to make. Local Ward Members: Stephen Conway no response Dee Tomlin no response Erleigh Court Gardens, Earley 25 A request has been received from Earley Town Council, corroborated by separate feedback from residents, for an additional length of waiting restrictions on Erleigh Court Gardens. Although its junction with The Drive is currently protected by waiting restrictions, the sharp bend on Erleigh Court Gardens suffers from regular inconsiderate parking, causing a blind bend for drivers approaching from both directions. 26 The proposal for double yellow lines will ensure vehicles do not park on either side of the unsuitable bend (a length of approximately 25 metres) and is shown on drawing number 5049/494. Chequers Way, Woodley 27 A number of residents have expressed their concern over the parking from Bulmershe School users in Chequers Way close to its junction with Howth Drive. Problems arise when vehicles are parked too close to this junction causing vehicles turning into the road being unable to proceed into Chequers Way. This can be especially evident at school peak times, and can cause a queue back onto Howth Drive.

10 28 The proposal is simply to introduce a short length of double yellow lines at this junction in line with the Highway Code (and similar to the lining around similar junctions in the immediate vicinity). The proposed extent of the restrictions can be seen on drawing number 5049/495. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES Ward: Bulmershe and Whitegates Town or Parish Council: Woodley Town Council no response Town or Parish Council: Earley Town Council The Planning Committee was broadly in agreement with the proposals, but did ask whether restrictions could be included on one side of the road to fill the gap between the existing and proposed yellow lining. Local Ward Members: Jenny Lissaman no response Sam Rahmouni no response Malcolm Storry no response Executive Member has agreed with Earley Town Council s request above and has instructed officers to include an additional length between the existing and proposed double yellow lines on the south east side of Erleigh Court Gardens. Western Avenue, Woodley 29 It is considered necessary to extend the existing length of double yellow lines at Western Avenue s junction with Reading Road as the significant volume of traffic entering Western Avenue is often obstructed close to the junction. The proposed additional extent will ensure a longer length of road in which cars can enter (and wait if opposing traffic flow requires it) without queuing back too close to Reading Road. The extension is shown on drawing 5049/496. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES Ward: Sonning Town or Parish Council: Sonning Parish Council - no response Local Ward Members: Steve Chapman no response 30 Due to the minor nature of these restrictions it has been deemed appropriate for these proposals to be prepared within the same TRO, thereby saving on advert costs. Financial implications 31 These works are estimated to cost: Advert Cost 1,000 Engineering Cost 500 Total 1,500 and can be funded from the 2008/2009 Revenue allocation for Highway Improvement Schemes.

11 Recommendation 32 It is recommended that the Executive Member for Highways and Transport approves: 1) The installation of an additional length of single yellow line to complement the existing Polehampton C of E Infant School keep clear marking on Hermitage Drive, Twyford as shown on drawing number 5049/497 2) The installation of an additional of double yellow line waiting restrictions on the sharp bend on Erleigh Court Gardens, Earley as shown on drawing number 5049/494. 3) The installation of of double yellow lines on Chequers Way, Woodley close to its junction with Howth Drive as shown on drawing number 5049/495. 4) The extension the existing length of double yellow lines at the junction of Western Avenue with Reading Road, Woodley as shown on drawing number 5049/496. 5) The statutory advertisement and consultation upon the proposals to introduce waiting restrictions on Hermitage Drive, Twyford; Erleigh Court Gardens, Earley; Chequers Way and Western Avenue, Woodley as shown on drawings 5049/494, 5049/495, 5049/496 and 5049/497. 6) Any objections received, being reported back to the Executive Member for Highways and Transport for further consideration. 7) If no objections are received to approve the introduction of the Traffic Regulation Order.

12 APPENDIX A SAFFRON CLOSE AND AMBER CLOSE COMMENTS & OBJECTIONS SUMMARY Letter from Comment/Objection Officer Comment Resident of [SUPPORT] I am in favour of the revised final proposal. Noted. Saffron Close South Central [SUPPORT] The Trust is in favour of this proposal as obstructive commuter parking in Noted. Ambulance Service these areas (and many others) causes a serious delay in response times to emergency calls. Resident of [OBJECTION] Whilst I appreciate the parking problems in Saffron Close it is unfair for Noted. Exemptions for contractors Saffron Close residents not to be able to have visitors/contractors at their properties between 10-11am working on a property will ensure this Mon-Fri This in my view is wholly unacceptable but could be overcome if each does not create a problem. household were issued with a permit allowing parking at the given time. The issue of permits is not permitted Resident Saffron Close of Owner of property in Amber Close Resident of Amber Close Earley Town Council Resident Saffron Close Resident Saffron Close of of [SUPPORT] As a disabled person I have to rely on specialist accessible transport, which sometimes has to park some distance from my home I am fully in favour of this proposal. [OBJECTION] You are trying to stop the commuters and your first proposal of no restriction between am was absolutely fine and would have achieved the objective... However, your current proposal of no waiting at any time will affect my property the most. Not at all acceptable There are no parking problems on Amber Close other than few commuters parking and this is not the way to deal with that. [SUPPORT] I have nearly had an accident several times driving out of my house I hope you are successful in implementing these proposals. [SUPPORT] I am able to report that Councillors had no objection to these latest proposals, and hope that they will prove acceptable to all parties so that the much needed restrictions in these two roads can be put in place without further delay. [SUPPORT] Good news indeed most welcome. [SUPPORT] I am in agreement with your new proposal on condition that the situation is properly controlled and monitored for a period of time to confirm the system is working I by DfT regulations. Noted. The restrictions will improve accessibility of transport vehicles. Noted. Amber Close has been included in the proposal as if restrictions were to be implemented in Saffron Close it is likely that some displaced vehicles may immediately start parking in Amber Close. Noted. Noted. Noted. Noted.

13 Resident of Saffron Close Thames Valley Police Resident of Saffron Close Resident of Saffron Close would point out that at the moment of writing there are 17 cars between my property and the exit to the close. [SUPPORT] We concur wholeheartedly with this Final proposal. [SUPPORT] Minimal offence time one hour will encourage occasional enforcement particularly in the early stages to send a positive message to residents and visitors alike at the discretion of local supervisors. Thames Valley Police have no objections. [SUPPORT] We to the proposed arrangements. [SUPPORT] Random parking by commuters and other members of the public has long been a problem in this area recently two cars parked so that I could not get out of the road to go to work cars have been dumped in the hammerhead I am concerned that the other residents of the close cannot reach a decision the majority of these residents are not affected by the grossly inconsiderate parking in the hammerhead and therefore do not consider the urgency I see these new plans as highly acceptable and hope they can be enforced as soon as possible. Noted. Noted. Positive indication of future enforcement action by TVP. Noted.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21