Minutes of North Area Panel 5 July 2007

NORTH AREA PANEL


Meeting held 5th July, 2007, at High Green School, Wortley Road

PRESENT:		Councillors Alan Hooper (Chair), Trevor Bagshaw and David Baker.

		Also in attendance:-
		Ann Blantern	-	Area Co-ordinator
		Matthew Rush	-	Area Support Officer
		Cate Jockel	-	Transport and Highways Service
		Ashley Carnall	-	Transport and Highways Service
		Andy McKie	-	Transport and Highways Service
		Patrick Burns	-	Committee Secretariat

and approximately 38 members of the public
………………..

					Action
1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	No apologies for absence were received from Members of the Panel.

2.	PROPOSALS FOR WORTLEY ROAD
	Cate Jockel, Ashley Carnall and Andy McKie, Transport and Highways Division, reported on proposals to carry out measures on Wortley Road to tackle traffic congestion and to improve road safety. They referred to (a) the background to the scheme, its aims, namely improving road safety and traffic flow, preventing vehicles from mounting the pavement, linking with the High Green School's Travel Plan, to improve access for buses to local bus stops and to protect road accesses, (b) the proposals in detail, namely providing a clear road width of 4.8 metres and appropriate parking restrictions, moving one bus stop and providing bus stop clearways at that location, to provide two plateau and red surfacing, "Keep Clear" markings protected by a Traffic Regulation Order and day time parking restrictions outside High Green School, (c) the process of obtaining authority for carrying out the Scheme, namely public consultation, advertising a draft Traffic Regulation Order, submitting a report to the North and West Planning and Highways Area Board, containing all the issues raised within the consultations including those recorded at this meeting, with a target of reporting to the Board in September, 2007, with recommendations and the Board taking the decision in the early Autumn.
	Members of the public present made the following observations:-

	· The present scheme was not in the best interests of the residents of Wortley Road and High Green and the businesses on Wortley Road and it would not achieve its objectives. There were approximately 2,700 bus journeys per week along Wortley Road and in most cases the average number of passengers was three and a half per bus. There were too many buses. The scheme proposed taking away valuable parking space so there would be nowhere for residents to park.

	· Wortley Road was a safe road and had no record of a fatal accident. If residents had requested the installation of speed bumps there, they would have been ridiculed by the Traffic and Highways Service. The present Scheme would make the road more dangerous.

	· Customers who used the local businesses travelled by car and if there was no parking available for them, they would go to the Asda store nearby. The local shops were vital to the residents and must be protected. They must not be sacrificed for the benefit of the bus operators.

	· If only one bus was travelling along Wortley Road that was acceptable but they travelled along it in convoys and went on to the footpath. The Action Group had been formed because of the problem of buses going on to the footpath near the School. The proposed movement of a bus stop was unnecessary because if buses were parked opposite each other it was not a problem, as only one in four buses would stop at that particular stop. There was also no need for the installation of bus bays. Traffic measures were required for the traffic island close to the "Rhythm and Booze" shop. Yellow lines should be provided at Thomson Hill and double yellow lines from the School to the traffic island but there should be no yellow lines on Chapel Road, New Street or Piece End where there was only one house. The Traffic Commissioner should be asked to indicate how many bus journeys along the road would be reasonable. The Action Group had made proposals to the Transport and Highways Service for dealing with the problems of Wortley Road and had not received a response.

	· The informal crossing point would not be treated by cars as a crossing point. There was no crossing at High Green but this road deserved one. The proposals to retain the safety barrier was welcomed as so many buses were travelling along the road but there was no provision to prevent buses mounting the kerb between the Needham's shop and the nearby public house. The speed bumps were intended to slow traffic down after other measures took effect. It appeared that increased speeds were envisaged, but with so many buses travelling along the road it was not necessary to restrict traffic speeds.

	· The report stated that the aim was "to have the least impact on parking spaces" but the proposal was the worst so far in terms of parking provision. The problem was the volume of buses travelling on the road between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m.. Local residents were being held to ransom by the bus operators.

	· The proposal to move the bus stop was unacceptable as the stop should stay where it was. If it was moved drivers would have no view of the top of the road. If one was to be moved it should be the bus stop on the other side of the road.

	· The proposals would be funded by the Local Transport Plan "Bus Hotspot Block" of the Passenger Transport Executive but Wortley Road was not a hotspot in terms of traffic. There was a build up of buses before they reached High Green and they went along Wortley Road in two's or three's but were not held up more than three minutes. The West and North Planning and Highways Area Board had expressed concern at the proposals and had sought the views of local residents. The Officers should report back to the Board that nothing had been done.

	· All the parking spaces would be removed from Wortley Road and the questioner's business would probably close down. There were no difficulties with regard to parking on the North side of the road so the restrictions should be applied during the day time hours only.

	· If the parking was taken away from the area at the bottom of the road, there would be no room for residents to park as all the businesses in that area opened during unsocial hours.

	· The proposal stated that approximately five or six car parking spaces would be lost but the speaker believed that 10-12 spaces would be lost. The landlord of the nearby public house permitted residents to use the car park but if this was abused the parking in that car park would be restricted and other public houses would probably take the same attitude.

	· There should be restricted parking near the premises of the local dentist as it was the most difficult location to access. Similarly there was difficulty in accessing Potters Hill but care must be taken with other areas, for example near the flats. There was a wide footpath in that area so some of that footpath could be used to provide parking space.

	· No one would take notice of any restrictions of parking. The questioner lived in a nearby flats complex and car owners were already parking at the nearby bus shelter. They ignored a "Keep Clear" sign at the flats and often parked across the entrance to the car park of the flats. Whatever restrictions were imposed they would be ignored.

	· The School was working to address the issues of traffic on Wortley Road and was involved with the Wortley Road Action Group. It also worked with parents to encourage them not to bring their vehicles to the School. On 4th July the coach hired by the School had had difficulties in dropping off children who had been on an outing and had therefore parked on the pavement. This situation had been exacerbated by parents parking on the zig zag lines on Wortley Road. All the School could do was to ask parents to move their vehicles. At present they were not breaking the law, as the road was not governed by a Traffic Regulation Order. The School’s teachers were parking within the car park of the Miners Welfare Institute and were "buddying up" in terms of sharing vehicles and those within walking distance of the School walked to work.

	· A way forward could be to approach the bus operators and suggest a compromise, in the form of a reduction in services earlier in the evening than at present, because it was an offence for their vehicles to mount the kerb. Residents could take photographs of buses mounting the kerb and send copies of them to the South Yorkshire Police.

	· Vehicles parked in front of the bus stop, forcing buses out into the road and therefore blocking traffic.

	· It was possible to park on the road at the moment but the proposals would ensure that it would not be possible to park at 4.30 p.m. nor at 10.00 p.m., as they stood.

	· Residents would not park on the Council owned land and then walk to the shops.

	· Vehicles parked in front of the speaker’s home. Her child was disabled and she found difficulty in getting out of her drive. The plan was to permit unrestricted parking at that location and the activities of the buses made things worse for her.

	· Residents were not seeking fewer buses for the local route but changes to the route, so that they would not all travel along Wortley Road.

	Members of the Panel and Officers stated that:-

	· Buses did mount the pavement and the reasoning was that if there was no parking they would not have to do so. The problem did not only involve buses but also other wide vehicles such as lorries. The aim was to keep a width of 4.8 metres through parking restrictions so there would be no need for buses to mount the kerb. · The bus services were the central question so the City Council had requested the Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) and the operators to indicate their plans, regarding the number of buses using Wortley Road and they had indicated there were no plans to increase or decrease the numbers. The volume of traffic would therefore stay as it was, which was within their control. With the exception of the service to Penistone all the bus services using Wortley Road were commercial services. · The next stage of the Scheme was to take the proposals to public consultation, to assess the comments and to include them within a report, which would be submitted to the West and North Planning and Highways Area Board. The Board would have the authority to approve the Scheme or to reject it. The process was a legal procedure and local residents who wished to object to the Scheme should do so and be specific in terms of their reasons for doing so. · The possibility of a one way system for Wortley Road had been put to the operators but they had turned it down. The transport system was a deregulated environment so the City Council had no control over the activities of the operators. The Government had been asked to increase the powers of Local Authorities to control services through quality contracts but the granting of those powers was some years off. The Traffic Commissioner had not intervened in the activities of the bus operators anywhere in the Country in terms of achieving a reduction in the number of buses on a particular route. In effect the operators were a law to themselves. The South Yorkshire Police could intervene and prevent the introduction of a bus route on the grounds of safety. · A survey had been carried out to get an impression of the needs of local residents and there was a level of short stay parking of approximately one hour, which was taken as the benchmark of demand. The restrictions would reduce the total amount of parking available to five-six spaces. It was the case that the landlord of a local public house was community spirited and did allow local residents to park within it’s car park but that could not be relied upon. Further examination could be made of the number of parking spaces that would be lost. A 12 hour survey had been carried out to examine the number of cars which were parked and for how long and it had been found that 34-53 vehicles had been parked, normally for less than one hour at a time. The proposals would provide for 46 parking spaces during the daytime and more spaces in the evening if the restrictions were limited to the daytime. · At present there was more parking space than that available in the middle of the day and some would be lost. It was more an issue of where the capacity was lost rather than the total number of spaces which were available. At the beginning and at the end of the day there was less demand for parking than during the middle of the day. The restriction would be for 24 hours because there was no problem between 7.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. because the parking was needed in the evening. The highest number of vehicles parked was between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. during the school run. Anything the School could do to discourage parents from parking near the school would be useful. · In terms of the problem of parking at the School it was a case of winning the hearts and minds of parents who sometimes did things which were dangerous to all pupils including their own. All that could be done was to campaign for them to act responsibly through the School indicating how much a danger they were to their own children. It was not possible to prevent them from driving to the School.

	· It was vital that residents write in to indicate their personal needs and personal circumstances. There should be a more substantial and extended survey of traffic movements and parking on the road. The North and West Planning and Highways Area Board had requested a proposal which would be draconian in concept, as the issue was the need to publish a Traffic Regulation Order, which was an expensive process. It should therefore be expressed in terms which were greater than the proposal to avoid the need to publish a proposal again. The present Scheme was in effect the worst case and therefore the input of residents was vital. Various meetings in the past had considered the difficulties and the Governors of High Green School were concerned at the problems outside the School. A 19th Century road could not provide 21st Century facilities.

	· It was intended that the proposal would be submitted to the Planning and Highways Area Board in September but that they could well be put back. It was essential to clarify whether residents were asking for 24 hour parking or parking from 7.00 a.m. until 7.00 p.m. so that a balance could be struck to achieve what worked best for the residents. Consideration must be given to everything which came from the consultations. There was a need to show how the proposal would impact on their circumstances. The most obvious answer to the difficulties appeared to be to increase the level of parking available in the evening when there was less traffic flow. The present scheme was less onerous than the proposals, which had been submitted to the Planning and Highways Area Board in January. Following the consultation period the observations would be included within the report to the Board and a revised scheme could be brought to a further special meeting of the Panel for information purposes. The Officers could only explain what changes had been made to the present proposal and then it would be up to residents to attend the meeting of the Planning and Highways Area Board.

	· John Bann had stated at the meeting of the Area Board in January that efforts would be made to ensure that the process would fit the school holidays but the timetable had slipped. The works which would be carried out outside the High Green School were not so substantial that they need be done during the summer holiday. The more important issue was the effect of the financial year on the Scheme, but it was not essential that the proposal be submitted and considered by the Area Board in September.

	· In terms of provision of parking off Wortley Road, there was some Council owned land off Jeffcock Road which perhaps could be used for this purpose. It should be placed on record that there was a need for additional parking at High Green. It was accepted that there were other parking needs particularly for the premises of the dentist at High Green.

	Members of the Panel and Officers responded to questions from members of the public as follows:-

	· Neither the City Council nor the PTE had control over the bus operators.

	· The fact that a 24 hours restriction of parking would penalise residents, especially those such as the speaker who were housebound, would be taken on board. The present scheme was a draft proposal and the Traffic Regulation Order could be amended so that it would be less onerous. There could not be a clearway where at present there were yellow lines and there would be double yellow lines where the bus stop was if there was not a clearway.

	· Residents should make clear the point that the road would be free of restrictions during the night. For that reason the proposals had included restrictions to parking on Saturdays which was a standard restriction although it was accepted that it was not a standard road.

	· A combined letter could be submitted within the consultations but it would be better to submit individual letters.

	· The proposal was not a fait accompli. Proposals could be removed from the Scheme and it would be more difficult to include measures without considerable expense and effort.

	· The proposal that the bus stop at the Parish Council offices on Mortomley Lane should be included within the Scheme, would be taken as a response to the consultations.

	· It would be possible to approach the PTE for the removal of a bus stop which was too close to the next bus stop and similarly the proposal to remove one bus stop on the Southwards direction to another bus stop in the same direction would be taken as a contribution to the consultations.

	· It would be possible to submit a response to the consultations by e mail.

	The Panel agreed that a further special meeting of the Panel to receive a presentation on the proposals would be held, prior to their consideration by the West and North Planning and Highways Area Board.

3.	NEXT MEETING
	The Panel noted that its next scheduled meeting would be held on Wednesday, 18th July, 2007, at 6.30 p.m. at a venue to be determined.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |