AGENDA ITEM 6

BOROUGH OF POOLE

BROADSTONE, MERLEY AND BEARWOOD AREA COMMITTEE

8 JUNE 2011

REPORT OF HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS – MERLEY WAYS

  1. Purpose of Report

1.1To consider objections received as a result of the advertisement of the proposed waiting restrictions in Merley Ways

  1. Recommendation

2.1It is recommended that the Orders are confirmed as advertised with the exception of the proposed restrictions outside no.s 5, 161, 2-6 and92-96, as shown on the attached drawing No NDR 09-111B.

  1. Information
  2. The proposal to impose waiting restrictions at the entrance to Merley Ways following Orders was advertised between 24 February and 24 March 2011.
  3. All the representations have been circulated to the Committee members and the representations are summarised below.
  1. Objections

4.1Twelve letters/emails of objection have been received from 9 households (one household sent separate objections from 2 residents) in Merley Ways and 2 visitors.

4.2 Another resident wrote to support the proposed restrictions in the dual carriageway section and the sightlines at the junction, but to oppose the restrictions outside Nos 6-92

4.3The objectors feel that the restrictions are not needed, will displace parking onto Oakley Hill or closer to the bends in Merley Ways, and cause inconvenience and difficulties for residents and visitors. Some of the objectors have suggested that rather than imposing restrictions in the dual carriageway section, the grass verge should be removed instead.

  1. Support

5.1Eight letters/emails of support have been received from 7 households (one household sent separate representations from 2 residents) in Merley Ways, and another letter (refered to in para 4.2 above) has been sent in support of the proposed restrictions in the dual carriageway section and the sightlines at the junctions.

5.2These residents feel that the parking in this area makes it difficult for traffic to get through, and footway parking obstructs the passage of pedestrians, particularly those with wheelchairs, pushchairs etc. Some of the letters acknowledge that the restrictions would cause inconvenience for the residents of this section of road but they point out that all the properties have off-street parking available.

5.3Several of the letters asked for the yellow lines to be extended to deal with displaced parking, or other problems in the road.

  1. Conclusion

6.1The Council is carrying out a study of access routes in conjunction with the refuse collection service and emergency services. The carriageways on each side of the dual carriageway link road are nominally 4m wide. It is noticeable that when drivers park here, they park on the footway as this carriageway is too narrow for large vehicles to pass a parked car (Manual for Streets suggests that a carriageway width of 4.8m is needed for this). When discussed at the Traffic Panel meeting, the Panel noted that the road was the only access to a large number of houses and it is important to keep it clear.

6.2While an emergency vehicle would have the option to drive in on the other carriageway, this is not an appropriate arrangement, and, of course, the driver would not know which route to take until he was already committed to one side.

6.3It would not be appropriate to remove the central island. Not only would this cost approximately £5,000 to £10,000 but it would also remove an attractive feature on the entrance to the estate.

6.4Although there is no record of injury accidents in the last 3 years at the junction in Merley Ways, it is appropriate to provide a sightline at the junctions at each end of the access road. The Council uses a standard 15 m clearance (from the back of the footway of the side road) at junctions of this type throughout the Borough. There is scope to reduce the extent of the advertised restrictions to comply with this.

6.5There is clearly a range of views on this issue amongst local people. While restrictions would be appropriate to keep the narrow carriageways clear and to protect visibility at the junctions, the traffic flows are low enough that restrictions would not need to be imposed opposite the junction (i.e. outside Nos 6-92).

6.6The Council cannot impose more stringent, or longer, restrictions than it has shown in the advertisements – a further advertisement would be required if the Committee decided to extend the restrictions. In view of the mixed views on this issue, it is suggested that a further advertisement is not justified here.

Julian McLauglin

Head of Transportation Services

Background PapersNone

Name and Telephone Number of Officer Contact

Steve Dean(01202) 262071

1