BOROUGH OF POOLE

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP

30TH JULY 2009

The Meeting commenced at 7pm and finished at 8:50pm.

Present:

Councillor Burden (Chairman)

Councillor Chandler (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Brooke (substitute for Councillor Mrs Long), Mrs Rampton, Mrs Stribley, Trent and Wilson (substitute for Councillor Miss Wilson)

Members of the public present: 0

TAG09.09APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Long and Miss Wilson.

TAG10.09DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

TAG11.09MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 11th June 2009, having been previously circulated, be taken as read, confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

TAG12.09SUCH OTHER BUSINESS, AS IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION

There were no items of urgent business.

TAG13.09LOLLIPOP CONTROLLED CHILDREN’S CROSSING IN STANLEY GREEN ROAD

The Head of Transportation Services reported that a 121 signature Petition had been referred to this Group by Council in the following terms:

“We the undersigned request the Borough of Poole to withdraw its decision to cease having a Lollipop Controlled Children’s crossing in Stanley Green Road and to reinstate it immediately. This is in the interests of safety for the children and local residents. This busy “short cut” is not safe without this vital measure.”

He reported that Transportation Services currently operated School Crossing Patrols at 25 First, Middle and Combined School sites around the Borough for a budget of £166,000 per annum. This equated to approximately £6,640 per site. Sites were established based on a number of factors, such as the number of unaccompanied children, the volume and speed of traffic, and an assessment of any potential hazards relating to the layout of the road where the main crossing occurred.

The Meeting was advised that recruitment of School Crossing Patrols was traditionally difficult, given the relatively few paid hours worked in the morning and afternoon compared with the resulting disruption of the whole day for those employees. There were a number of relief Patrols employed to cover any short-term vacancies which might occur but this cover could not be guaranteed. In the absence of this Civic Enforcement Officers could be made available, but with all of their other commitments their availability was also limited.

The School Crossing Patrol in Stanley Green Road had announced her retirement in Easter of this year. The opportunity was taken to review the current provision and it was originally proposed that the patrol not be replaced here.

However, Ward Members had not been happy with the proposal to remove the School Crossing Patrol in Stanley Green Road and following subsequent discussions it was agreed that every effort would be made to fill this position by temporary staff until a new school 20mph Zone proposed at Stanley Green School was implemented. At this time the operation of the School Crossing Patrol in respect of the new arrangement would be assessed and a decision made on its future provision.

It was anticipated that this Zone would be implemented over the summer holidays. However, proposals put before the 6 May 2009 Canford Heath, Creekmoor and Oakdale Area Committee had been rejected and an alternative Scheme still needed to be considered.

In response to points raised, the Head of Transportation Services responded by stating that if parents decided to organise their own patrol on a voluntary basis, whilst this was unusual, formal vetting procedures, such as a Criminal Record Bureau checks would have to be undertaken, but this was something that could be investigated. He also took on board the comments which had been made with regard to the state of the road markings in the vicinity of the Crossing Patrol in Stanley Green Road.

A Member felt that the decision on the future continuation of the Crossing Patrol should not be delegated to Officers but that the Transportation Advisory Group should be made aware of the outcome of this in due course.

RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder be requested to approve:-

(a)the Council using its best endeavours to fill the existing School Crossing Patrol until a 20mph School Zone Scheme is implemented; and

(b)the situation is reviewed following implementation of the Scheme, with the decision on the future continuation being delegated to Officers in consultation with Ward Members, the School and the Portfolio Holder.

TAG14.09TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES OUTSIDE CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUNDS

The Head of Transportation Services presented a report on the feasibility of funding traffic calming measures alongside children’s playgrounds.

The Meeting was advised that the Parkstone and Newtown Area Committee had recently considered the traffic and parking situation alongside the newly upgraded playground at Whitecliff Road. It appeared that the Playground had generally a significant number of new visitors to the area and there had been requests for measures to control parking and reduce traffic speeds in the roads nearby. The Area Committee approved the imposition of yellow lines to keep parking to one side of Whitecliff Road and a section of Sherwood Avenue closest to the Park. In addition to this, the Area Committee had requested the Transportation Advisory Group to consider introducing traffic calming measures near playgrounds generally, and particularly in Whitecliff Road.

It was emphasised that the Transportation Advisory Group had targeted its funding at locations with the worst accident records, to ensure that greatest benefit was obtained from any expenditure that it committed to road safety. Fortunately, only one personal injury accident had been reported to the Police in the last 4 years alongside Whitecliff Road, and so a Traffic Calming Scheme could not be justified as part of the Road Safety Programme. The Capital Programme included a Programme of introducing 20mph or school zones outside schools on a prioritised basis. It was therefore proposed that the Programme of introducing 20mph/School Zones outside schools be extended to include major playgrounds when all the Borough’s Schools had been treated. Discussions would continue with Leisure Services over funding and on an appropriate way of prioritising the Playground. The priority list would be reported to a future Meeting when the School Programme was reviewed. The Programme would take at least another 8 years to complete and it was not suggested that the annual allocation should be increased, it was anticipated that the Programme would need to be extended to cover the major playgrounds in the Borough. Schools were likely to be a higher priority but where new playgrounds were introduced the highway issues could be looked at at that time.

Members raised the following issues:-

  • A Member stated that there was a large programme for introducing 20mph or School Zones outside schools and the principle of introducing these at children’s playgrounds was a sound idea, especially on safety grounds. If there was an immediate problem which was raised then this could be dealt with. Feasibility studies should be undertaken and it was felt that Whitecliff could be a prime contender and that this could be included in the Programme in the medium/long term. An example of this was highlighted at Whitehorse Drive where there had been an issue on safety at the play area and the Planning Obligations Sub Group had recently allocated funding for the provision of a gate. Therefore it might be possible to use this type of funding in the future. A request was made for feedback to the Transportation Advisory Group on the recently introduced Poole Town Scheme to see if this was working.
  • A Member stated that “no waiting” restrictions had recently been advertised in Whitecliff Road and at present anyone would have difficulty in driving more than 20mph in the Road. However, when waiting restrictions were introduced this would mean that one could drive faster along the road. Popular places would always be busy and the principle suggested by the Head of Transportation Services was supported but there would be a need to prioritise Schemes according to need.
  • A Member agreed that there was a need for a Feasibility Study to be undertaken of combining Schemes outside schools and play areas and referred to many which had been introduced in Europe and this Country where combined Schemes had been introduced and had been successful. There was a need to look at this in more detail to see how many could be combined. There was a need for more evidence to be obtained and a Feasibility Study to be undertaken on combining the two Schemes.
  • A Member referred to the current situation in Lower High Street, which had kept traffic slow but speed would increase if the restrictions currently in place were removed. Whitecliff Road was a prime example where this would also happen and vehicle speeds would increase.
  • A Ward Member stated he would be interested to see how many children actually crossed the road at Whitecliff and emphasised that he did not want to see any accidents at this location but felt that there was some confusion as 20mph Zones did jot operate during term time but play areas were at their busiest at that time. As 20mph Zones outside schools only applied at term time play areas might then be without restrictions just when they were needed. There was a need to consider this in more detail and prioritise Schemes taking account of the number of visits by children to play areas and this should also include the risk involved. If one looked at this in detail, taking account of the risks involved, Whitecliff would probably be a low priority.
  • A Member stated that where appropriate there was a need to combine school sites with play areas and an example of where this could happen was Talbot Drive where it had recently been decided to introduce new play equipment next to the school site.
  • The Portfolio Holder felt that the Transportation Advisory Group was merely being asked to add the principle of including children’s playgrounds to the programme and these would be prioritised accordingly.
  • A Member stated that where a school was close to a play area then residents and Ward Members would want this type of combined Scheme and it was felt that there was no need to extend the Policy to achieve this at the present time. Funding was restricted and the existing Programme of introducing 20mph Zones outside schools should continue and if these were combined with children’s playgrounds this could raise aspirations which could not be met. If a candidate for a combined Scheme came forward then this could be considered but to combine them now as had been suggested could slow the process down and some school Schemes might not then be provided.

The Head of Transportation Services stated that the Council did not allocate funding at the present time to introducing 20mph Zones outside play areas and a future report could identify sites where this was needed to improve road safety and would take account of new play areas. This current Report was a way forward and it may prove to be the case that not all playgrounds if improved would need alteration to the adjacent highway. If Members extended the Zone to include residential elements then this would only result in a reduction in funding for school related zones and increase timescales for some locations by a number of years.

It was Proposed and Seconded that the following Amendment be made to the recommendation by adding “and giving consideration to 20mph residential zones where appropriate”. On being put to the vote, this amendment was LOST.

RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder approve the principle of continuing the existing programme of introducing 20mph Zones outside schools to include children’s playgrounds.

TAG15.09APPOINTMENT OF ROUTE AND BRANCH REVIEW GROUP

The Chairman asked the Group to appoint 3 Members to the Route and Branch Review Group (2 Conservatives and 1 Liberal Democrat). He also recommended that the first meeting be held on 1st September 2009 at 3:15pm and then further meetings in January and May 2010 unless any urgent issues arose.

RESOLVED that Councillors Burden, Mrs Rampton and Trent be appointed to the Route and Branch Review Group.

TAG16.09STREET LIGHTING

The Head of Transportation Services presented a report, to consider options for saving energy by reducing levels of street lighting. He stated that while there might not be a legal duty on a Highway Authority to light highways, the Highway Authority had the power to provide or remove lighting. Where lighting was provided there was a duty to maintain it. Highway lighting levels provided were to the relevant British Standard current at the time of installation. These levels varied dependent on the particular features and level and type of usage of the highway. Highway lighting was a significant producer of carbon emissions with over 18,000 lighting units producing approximately 5,500 tonnes of carbon and costing approximately £800,000 in electricity last year. There were a number of ways that electricity could be saved, such as the use of more energy efficient equipment. New equipment installed would be more efficient than that which it replaced and energy saving opportunities were maximised when the old lighting stock was replaced. While this process offered savings, it was a relatively limited process (less than 2% of the stock currently renewed annually). The focus of his Report was to consider other options that actually produced savings by reducing the duration and/or level of lighting.

The options were either a reduction in the level of lighting produced (i.e., by dimming or selected turning off of some intermediate columns) or the switching off of all lighting in an area. In either option, the opportunity for reducing provision could be timed between certain hours. Both options needed expenditure. The dimming option was available by installing appropriate electronic control gear within the unit. This could only be installed in relatively new lanterns so introducing this might also need to include for new lanterns. The switch off options required a simpler replacement using a “plug in” photocell that fitted most units and had a pre-set switch off/on provision. This allowed part night lighting (typically up to midnight and then from approximately 0600 hours if still dark). Other times could be pre-set if required before installation.

While the economic and environmental benefits for implementation were calculable, the effect on highway users or residents were best gauged by means of a trial with associated consultation. The potential residential areas for a trial would need to have relatively low levels of crime within which discreet areas of extent could be established. An Appendix to his Report included a plan showing 4 Wards, which had been identified as low crime areas based on information extracted from the Safer Poole Strategic Assessment of March 2009. Within these Wards a number of discreet areas had been identified as typical potential sites. Alternative or additional sites might be considered in close consultation with Ward Members prior to public consultation on any trial area. When part-time lighting was considered, there would also be a number of criteria to consider for retention of all night lighting for any trial and the details of these were included in the Report.

In summary, the Head of Transportation Services stated that lighting reduction could offer significant carbon saving opportunities to the Borough as well as saving money. The implications of such a strategy needed to be assessed and undertaking a trial to measure this and gauging public opinion was essential. Following this assessment process it was proposed to trial a small number of areas, including a major route and a residential area, the cost of which could be absorbed within existing street lighting budgets. The results of this trial would be brought back to a future meeting of the Transportation Advisory Group, including , if successful, recommendations for a future strategy, together with the associated cost and proposed funding mechanism.

The Meeting was advised that pilot areas had been chosen but it was emphasised that consultation with the Police and Ward Councillors was essential before the public were given the opportunity to comment. If the Police and Ward Councillors were not keen for a particular road to be included in the trial then it would not proceed to the public consultation part of the process. In all cases roads chosen for the trial were quiet and there was no through traffic and they were low crime areas. Additionally, Officers had been looking at higher speed roads to be included in the trial and Holes Bay Road had been suggested. Technical work was still needed on this but the view had been taken that this was a good road to trial but that the junctions would continue to be lit. Until the trial had been completed other similar areas could be looked at and the list put forward was therefore not definitive. If Members had any suggestions for roads to be included then these would also be considered.