Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Councillors.

There were no apologies for absence.

To receive information on any changes in the membership of the Committee.

Note – When a member of a Committee is unable to attend a meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee, the relevant Political Group Leader (or their nominated representative) may, by notice to the Monitoring Officer (or their nominated representative) prior to the meeting, appoint a substitute member from within the same Political Group. The contact details on the front of this agenda should be used for notifications.

There were no substitutes.

Councillors are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and the Council's Code of Conduct regarding Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.

Councillors are also required to disclose any other interests where a Councillor is a member of an external body or organisation where that membership involves a position of control or significant influence, including bodies to which the Council has made the appointment in line with the Council's Code of Conduct.

Councillors should also disclose if they have met with residents, ward councillors, petitioners or interested persons relating to any specific TAG agenda item in advance of the meeting.

Declarations received will be reported at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest made on this occasion.

To note the following Terms of Reference for the Transportation Advisory Group:

To consider transportation issues, including proposed highways regulation and traffic regulation orders.

To make recommendations to the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure to assist him in forming his recommendations to Cabinet for formal decision.

The Transportation Advisory Group may consult and meet residents, ward councillors, petitioners and interested persons when considering the matters referred to it.

The Advisory Group is not able to make decisions in its own right.

The Group will be convened at the request of the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure and officers supporting the Group will ensure that professional advice is available to the Group and that notes of the deliberations and discussions are taken.

The Terms of Reference were noted.

To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-

https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/documents/s2305/Public%20Items%20-%20Meeting%20Procedure%20Rules.pdf 

The deadline for the submission of public questions is Wednesday 15 January 2020.

The deadline for the submission of a statement is 12.00 noon, Tuesday 21 January 2020.

The deadline for the submission of a petition is 12.00 noon, Tuesday 21 January 2020.

No public issues were raised.

This report for the South East Dorset (SED) City Region Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) has been developed to update members on progress and communicate the actions that are currently in progress to ensure that the Council is ready to deliver the programme if it is successful with its bid for funding.

The Head of Transportation presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

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

• The Council had done everything to ensure that the bid for this funding was within the parameters set by the Department for Transport.
• It was uncertain whether the project would be threatened by the government’s pledge to support the north of England.
• The bid that BCP Council had submitted was one of twelve for a share of £1.22bn, originally this process had only been open to 10 city regions for a sum of £1.1bn, with our South East Dorset City Region and Preston added at a later date.
• The sum of money bid for was lower than original aspirations, in the early stages of bidding, the Government was clear that the Council would have the opportunity to bid for more of the funding. This advice had from government had changed, possibly due to oversubscription, hence the reduced sum being bid for at this later stage.
• There was an Officer capacity issue to address, as at present, the proposed schemes would be a challenge to deliver over a course of three years and even partnership organisations had raised concerns. There was a need for the Council to remain a credible delivery partner throughout.
• The Aim of this project was to enhance and deliver a host of sustainable transport options across the conurbation and beyond in partnership with Dorset Council.
• It was only possible to include packages of work within the project that could be delivered within three years, this meant that park and ride schemes would not be looked at through TCF, but would be explored as part the strategic car parking review being undertaken. The output from this would include the determination of the conurbation’s needs for park and ride solutions and whether it would be financially viable to operate and maintain.
• The park and ride site in Creekmoor had recently been resurfaced for use as a potential contingency site for post Brexit planning in the event that lorries needed to be stored, so could not be utilised at this point in time.
• Cabinet had engaged with the Department for Transport and had spent a day discussion options and concerns. Additionally, the Leader of the Council had written to DfT to best make the case for the bid.
• Separately to the TCF Project, Officers would be recommending a refresh to the Local Transport Plan in view of recent changes.
• Due to the multi-centred nature of the conurbation, there was a great need to evaluate the options that were open to it.

In summing up, the Chairman expressed his thanks to Officers for the report and all of the work that had gone into the bid, and that he had found the discussion to be incredibly useful and highlighted that this item would return to the Transportation Advisory  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider the following reports and make recommendations to Cabinet:

The Head of Transportation 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.

He explained that this was the covering report to a series of sub-reports which would be considered individually.

To consider representations to the advertisement of Traffic Regulation Orders for P15 2019 Stourbank Rd Residents Parking Scheme.

The Traffic Management Team Leader presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'C' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Member comments in relation to the proposals included:

• Residents warmly welcomed the introduction of the proposed restrictions and there was no reason for them not to be implemented.
• There would be great benefit in limiting the restrictions to just the times where the existing problems caused were at their worst.
• Resident’s schemes could be difficult to manage, created an inflationary pressure in car ownership and existing problems generally ended being displaced elsewhere, generally surrounding roads which, in this case would be Riverlea Road and Kings Avenue to name a few.
• Additional parking area had been created by the school for support staff and teachers, with scope for students to park in as well.
• It would be disappointing if schools started offering parking to sixth formers in times of greater environmental and climate awareness.
• There were other options to resolve the problems caused by student parking near to the school and resolving issues as they arose with a piecemeal approach should be avoided.
• Would like to see this delayed and considered after strategic parking review has taken place.

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

• The restrictions imposed would be from 8am to 6pm as this is what had been advertised.
• There was no opportunity for the majority of residents of Stourbank Road to park anywhere but on the road as there was no suitable offroad parking.
• This was a legacy request that came from Dorset County Council.
• This committee existed to advise cabinet and take a temperature from the discussion.
• Residents would need to pay a nominal fee of £50 for a parking permit to cover the administration costs of the scheme.
• Dorset Council had not been able to implement the scheme previously due to timescales – not all processes had been completed before its abolition, hence the need for the process to start from scratch through BCP Council.

To consider representations to the advertisement of Traffic Regulation Orders for P1 2019 Disabled Bay Proposals September 2019.

The Traffic Management Team Leader presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'D' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Member comments in relation to the proposals included:

• This was a request based on need and there should therefore be no issues.
• Good idea that these general discussions are had at this point. Seems that fees have changed over the years.
• It was important to consider this individual’s needs.

Comments and discussion included:

• Residents applying for a disabled parking bay were charged for this service which would also include subsequent removal at a later date, in the event that it was no longer needed.
• Applicants in Bournemouth were charged £300 for a general disabled bay or £400 for a specific permit-based bay. A general bay could be occupied by any blue badge holder.
• In Christchurch and Poole it was only possible to apply for a general bay.
• In Bournemouth, anyone that applied for a general bay was able to ‘upgrade’ it to a permit bay if required, subject to a fee of £200
• Strict criteria needed to be met when applying for a disabled bay, particularly if applying for the permit based one.

To consider representations to the advertisement of Waiting Restrictions for Beresford Road (cul-de-sac) and Beresford Road.

The Transport Network Manager presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'D' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Officers responded to a request for clarification, details included:

• The proposed restriction would be for both sides of the road, which was in the region of 4.5m wide. The Road needed to be accessible for larger vehicles such as emergency vehicles and waste collection vehicles.

To consider representations to the advertisement of Waiting Restrictions in Alipore Close, and the junction with Birchwood Road.

The Traffic Network Manager presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'E' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Member comments in relation to the proposals included:

• Residents made heavy use of the cul-de-sac
• It was considered more important that full size refuse vehicles were able to access the properties than it was for a small number of residents to park outside their homes and if refuse vehicle vehicles were unable to access a route, consideration also needed to be given to emergency vehicle access as they would also likely have the same difficulty.
• The streetview image had “painted a thousand words”

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

• There were a couple of substantially large properties at the end of Alipore Close, which housed at least 10 flats, the number of bins that the blocks of flats utilised was not known by highways officers.
• It was estimated that the distance from Birchwood Road to the top of Alipore Close was approximately 70m.

To consider representations to the advertisement of Waiting Restrictions for Doyne Road.

The Transport Network Manager presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'F' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Member comments in relation to the proposals included:

• The head of the road already had double yellow lines in place but when reviewing the alignment of the road, it was clear to see that it was indeed very narrow, which would make it nearly impossible for emergency vehicles to pass and residents were parking on the pavement.

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

• Parking restrictions would be implemented on the left-hand side of the road as the road was entered. There was more opportunity to park on the other side of the road and so it would not have been conducive to have introduced restrictions on that side as there would have been a greater impact to all.
• The objections received were not necessarily objections but more of a request to vary the proposed scheme to residents parking only.
• H bar markings otherwise known as access protection markings could be introduced at the request of any resident, for a fee of £150. The parking enforcement team would be able to fine offenders where permission not given by resident. This was now available now across whole of the conurbation.
• There could be a variety of reasons for dropped kerbs extending further than necessary, generally this would be due to historical or construction reasons. Capital improvement schemes would often reinstate full height schemes, but these were not dealt with as a priority.

To consider representations to the advertisement of the relocation of a Disabled Parking Space in Dunford Road.

The Transport Network Manager presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'G' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Member comments in relation to the proposals included:

• Requests like this raised some alarm bells in terms of safeguarding because of previous experiences which had led to intimidation.
• There were already double yellows on one side of the road and this proposal seemed a reasonable relocation of an existing bay.
• The pavements on this road seemed very narrow.
• These kinds of requests can get very emotive.
• The request effectively took a parking space which already existed and just sought to relocate it.

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

• The resident that had made the request was having to pay for the new bay to be implemented.
• There would be no net loss of parking, despite concerns raised by other residents.
• It was possible to withhold the details of an applicant during the application process, but once implemented it would become abundantly clear as to who was using a space.
• Double yellow lines were present on both sides further down the road to allow for emergency vehicles to pass as the road narrowed.
• When there were roads which had issues with width, the council did work with residents and emergency services to identify the severity of problems.

To consider the advertisement of changes to the Traffic Regulations Order (TRO) as requested by members of the public, councillors and council officers.

The Traffic Management Team Leader presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'H' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Member comments in relation to the proposals included:

• These reports should explain why the changes are needed.
• The majority of people liked the idea of being able to park outside their homes, but this was not a right.
• Pleased that a number of these proposals were now coming forward to resolve historic difficulties.
• Would like to see parking meters with an option for cash payments as not all residents had access to smart phones and there was a need to think of payment options across the borough.
• One of the key benefits of introducing restrictions was that it could help encourage modal shift.
• Need to ensure that app parking methods are charging the appropriate seasonal rates where appropriate.
• Need to review requests and ensure that they’re in the public interest, not just in the interest of a couple of residents.

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

• The measures detailed at items 6 and 8 were being reinstated because the roads in question were close to the seafront in Southbourne which were often congested during the summer months due to seasonal visitors trying to avoid parking charges. The previous seasonal restriction had previously been removed a couple of years ago, but residents were now requesting its reinstatement.
• There needed to be balance when implementing restrictions to parking due to the displacement that often occurred as a result.
• Ward councillors would be consulted on proposals as a matter of course in the future, this was not currently always the case.
• Would like to see parking meters with an option for cash. Comes back to strategic car parking review.
• The proposals along the Broadway which would use PayByPhone were a cheap and efficient to administer option and, despite many concerns, a smartphone was not required because it was possible to call and use the automated phone system. There was the option for visitors to use the nearby car park which accepted credit/debit card payments as well as PayByPhone.
• Officers were working with the Portfolio Holder to review the TRO process including the scheme of delegation, there was a need to harmonise processes across the conurbation.

To consider the advertisement of changes to the Traffic Regulations Order (TRO) implementing changes to on-street disabled bays.

The Traffic Management Team Leader 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.

There were no comments received

Officers responded to a request for clarification, details included:

• There was a conversion fee to take a general disabled bay to a permit bay.

To obtain permission to permit an Order to protect the currently obstructed path from James Road to Sheringham Road as a Public Footpath.

The Chairman advised Members that the item was withdrawn prior to the meeting and would be considered at the next meeting of the Transportation Advisory Group on 26 February 2020

This report for the 2020/21 LTP Capital Programme has been developed to:

i)             Seek approval for the LTP 2020/21 Capital allocation of £3,078,000 of Integrated Transport Block funding and £3,725,000 of Highway Maintenance funding.

ii)            Seek approval for the indicative 2021/22 and 2022/23 Highways Maintenance Programmes as set out in Appendix B

iii)           Note the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership (DLEP) Funding allocation of £11,908,588 to deliver the DLEP approved programme (with confirmation on allocations for a number of additional schemes listed to be determined in early 2020).

iv)           Note the inclusion of £1,000,000 of National Productive Investment Funding (NPIF) towards the Wallisdown Crossroads scheme

v)            Seek approval for the drawing down of £597,000 of Developer Contributions into the programme to support the delivery of those schemes listed in Appendix A

vi)           Note the allocation of 2020/21 LTP funding (combined total of £1,328,000) as a local contribution towards the SE Dorset City Regions Transforming Cities Fund (TCF) programme (note TCF elements are subject to a decision on funding award in early 2020).

vii)          Note the allocation of 2020/21 LTP Highway Maintenance funding includes within the structural maintenance rows (total value £2,835,000) a local contribution towards the Council’s Challenge Fund Tranche 2B bid of £525,000.

viii)        Note the allocations for 2020/21 and 2021/22 LTP Highway Maintenance funding includes within the Bridges and Structures rows (total value of £600,000 and £690,000 respectively) a local contribution towards the Dorset Council led Challenge Fund Expression of Interest for funding to construct a new bridge (including improved pedestrian and cycle facilities) at Longham (over the Stour) of £300,000 in each year.

The DLEP and Capital Programme Manager presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'J' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

Member comments in relation the LTP included:

• The Wallisdown crossroads was a difficult area to manage due to the ability for cars to park on shop forecourts and also the fact that it was a major bus route which did not have a dedicated layby for it to pull into allowing passengers to board and alight, which led to regular and significant congestion and proved to be one of the key problems road users experienced when navigating east-west. It was important that great thought was given to this arterial road on the network and how best the problems could be remedied.
• It was disappointing that the trees would be lost as part of the work to be undertaken at the Boundary Road roundabout, but this was necessary as it was a fatal injury blackspot, and at least they would be replanted. The layout was also not ideal but it was acknowledged that it was not possible to redesign at this late stage as this would incur significant costs.
• There was a need to address problems in the Highcliffe area, which had several sections of the A337 that were very dangerous due to the volume of traffic that it handled. The Parish Council in Highcliffe and Walkford would be keen to assist highways officers in identifying resolutions.
• It was Important that this body wasn’t used for pushing ward issues as its main purpose was to be advising on the decision to be made from a BCP council-wide point of view.
• Realtime info for buses needs to be properly delivered.
• Cabinet were seeking to introduce a sub-committee which would look at local centres and the issues that they faced, it was intended that this would work as a place audit.

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

• A report would be provided to the next meeting of TAG which would set out the proposed enhancements for the Boundary Road roundabout.
• Bus companies did not like laybys due to the difficulty faced by drivers when trying to re-join the main carriageway, which proved to be a challenge for tackling congestion.
• The Safer routes to schools line would include was funded part funded by the Council and part funded by the TCF Scheme on a 50/50 basis.
• It would be inadvisable to recommend any changes to the figures quoted within the appendices because it would undermine the strategic bid for the Transforming Cities Fund.
• The figure of £185k for bus facilities would largely be spent on the provision and upgrading of bus shelters and real time information boards, although this would primarily be focussed within the Christchurch area due to the historic underfunding of its bus infrastructure.
• There were multiple lines referring to shelters and RTI, the TCF would fund these on routes within identified corridors,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To consider the Forward Plan

The Forward Plan was noted

The Transportation Advisory Group is asked to note the future meeting dates  as detailed below, and determining the location as to where this should be.

2019/20

Wednesday 26 February 2020

Wednesday 1 April 2020

Thursday 7 May 2020

2020/21

Thursday 9 July 2020

Tuesday 8 September 2020

Wednesday 4 November 2020

Wednesday 2 December 2020

Wednesday 20 January 2021

Wednesday 24 March 2021

The dates and times of future meetings were noted

Comments and discussions included:

• 7pm start is an acceptable time to start as this was more convenient to some councillors and also members of the public.

·         Bournemouth was the most suitable venue to hold meetings due to its central location.