Issue - meetings

Petition: Road Safety in the Branksome Park and Canford Cliffs Area

Meeting: 18/03/2020 - Cabinet (Item 148)

148 Recommendations from the Transportation Advisory Group pdf icon PDF 135 KB

This covering report asks the Cabinet to consider representations made in response to the advertisement of a number of Traffic Regulation Orders.

Additionally, Cabinet is asked to approve the sealing and advertisement of a number of other Traffic Regulation Orders.

The reports have been considered by the recent meeting of the Transportation Advisory Group.

Additional documents:

Decision:

It is RESOLVED that Cabinet:-

(a)           Confirms that permission be granted to create an order to record the unprotected footpath from James Road to Sheringham Road as a Public Right of Way as set out in the TRO report;

(b)           In relation to the Branksome Park and Canford Cliffs Residents Association Road Safety Petition approves:

                    i.        Acknowledgement of the petitioners concerns and they be advised that in the absence of any significant accident record in this area we could not justify any road safety engineering interventions at present;

                  ii.        Forwarding of the petitioners concerns to Dorset Roads Traffic Policing Unit for their consideration relating to speed enforcement;

                 iii.       Informing the petitioners that the Council will investigate and assess options to enhance pedestrian and cycle facilities in the area but that no funding has been identified for implementing this work; and

                 iv.       Advising the local resident group which submitted the petition that its bid for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Neighbourhood Portion funding is to be considered alongside all other similar bids received and a decision on potential funding will be made in due course.

(c)           Approves the advertisement of Traffic Regulation Orders as set out in TRO sub-report A;

(d)           Approves the advertisement of changes to on-street disabled bays as set out in the TRO sub-report B;

(e)           In relation to the Anti-Idling Outside Primary Schools Campaign appoves:

                    i.        an Anti-Idling Campaign be undertaken at a small number of primary schools using allocated DEFRA funding;

                  ii.        appropriate enforcement action be used but as a last resort;

                 iii.       should the campaign prove successful, it will be rolled out to additional schools across the BCP area in future years; and

                 iv.       that officer include information to schools about the carbon footprint of different types of transportation methods to educate parents on the impact of how journeys are made.

Voting: Unanimous

Portfolio Holder: Transport and Infrastructure

Reason

To confirm and approve various Traffic Regulation Orders as set out within the individual reports.

Minutes:

The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'I' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Cabinet were requested to consider representations made in response to the advertisement of a number of Traffic Regulation Orders, and to approve the sealing and advertisement of a number of other Traffic Regulation Orders.

In relation to this Cabinet was advised that the contained reports had already been considered by the recent meeting of the Transportation Advisory Group.

It is RESOLVED that Cabinet:-

(a)           Confirms that permission be granted to create an order to record the unprotected footpath from James Road to Sheringham Road as a Public Right of Way as set out in the TRO report;

(b)           In relation to the Branksome Park and Canford Cliffs Residents Association Road Safety Petition approves:

                    i.        Acknowledgement of the petitioners concerns and they be advised that in the absence of any significant accident record in this area we could not justify any road safety engineering interventions at present;

                  ii.        Forwarding of the petitioners concerns to Dorset Roads Traffic Policing Unit for their consideration relating to speed enforcement;

                 iii.       Informing the petitioners that the Council will investigate and assess options to enhance pedestrian and cycle facilities in the area but that no funding has been identified for implementing this work; and

                 iv.       Advising the local resident group which submitted the petition that its bid for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Neighbourhood Portion funding is to be considered alongside all other similar bids received and a decision on potential funding will be made in due course.

(c)           Approves the advertisement of Traffic Regulation Orders as set out in TRO sub-report A;

(d)           Approves the advertisement of changes to on-street disabled bays as set out in the TRO sub-report B;

(e)           In relation to the Anti-Idling Outside Primary Schools Campaign appoves:

                    i.        an Anti-Idling Campaign be undertaken at a small number of primary schools using allocated DEFRA funding;

                  ii.        appropriate enforcement action be used but as a last resort;

                 iii.       should the campaign prove successful, it will be rolled out to additional schools across the BCP area in future years; and

                 iv.       that officer include information to schools about the carbon footprint of different types of transportation methods to educate parents on the impact of how journeys are made.

Voting: Unanimous

Portfolio Holder: Transport and Infrastructure


Meeting: 26/02/2020 - Transportation Advisory Group (Item 18)

18 Branksome Park and Canford Cliffs Residents Association Road Safety Petition pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To consider an e-Petition from local residents to address safety concerns in their area.

 

Minutes:

The Senior Road Safety & Network Management Engineer presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'B' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

 

Vicky Moss, lead petitioner, introduced herself and set out the reasons for bringing the petition forward which primarily came down to the safety of residents and exercising a desire to apply to spend CIL monies on making improvements to the cycling and walking network

 

When asked about the involvement of Ward Councillors, the Lead Petitioner explained that she had liaised with Cllr Haines who was fully supportive. She had also contacted Cllr Iyengar, but had not received a response to date, although he had previously indicated that applications for CIL monies could stand more chance of success if a particular area was focussed upon, which the Branksome Park and Canford Cliffs Residents Association was not prepared to do because this was an issue that affected a large geographical area and therefore needed to be looked at as a whole.

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and requests for clarification, details included:

 

  • It was not possible to provide Road safety statistics for the BCP area at this meeting as they were not to hand, although the number of KSI’s had been reducing over the years and currently were at their lowest historical figures, although there were still a significant number of hotspots across the conurbation.

 

Cllr T Trent declared that he was a Member of the CIL Panel, as did the Chairman and the Director of Growth and Infrastructure

 

  • CIL charges could not be levied against development projects based on direct impacts that would occur as a consequence of a development being built, instead this was left to a Section 106 Agreement which would be agreed as part of the planning application process.
  • The neighbourhood element of CIL was administered through a poole-wide bid process. The strategic element of CIL had a timescale for officers to come back with a strategic position – this was “a separate pot” based on the level of development. If the council determined that there was a strategic need in terms of highway infrastructure, then this could be added to a list. It would be competing against other strategic needs, such as school places. There was a need for the council to be compliant with government criteria.
  • On the current round of TCF funding, whilst some measures were conurbation-wide, the area in question was not included for specific infrastructure, partially due to constraints made by the Government during the bidding process, although this did not prohibit funds being sought in the future.

 

In summing up, the Chairman stated that he welcomed the work undertaken by the Residents Association in trying to promote walking and cycling within the area, and that there was a need to bid for any available funding for such measures, CIL was a limited pot of money, and the bid would be considered as part of that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18