Officer delegated objection report February 2012
Grass Routes
/Vassall and Oval wards
Report authorised by: Abu Barkatoolah, Head of Transportation
Executive summary
This report provides the Divisional Director for Public Realm with a summary of the objections to the statutory consultation relating to proposed public realm improvements to be delivered by the GRASS ROUTES project.
Summary of financial implications
The estimated cost of drafting, advertising and making traffic orders and subsequently implementing the proposals is £430,000, this will be funded from the LIP budget and S106 planning obligation.
Recommendations
(1) That the Divisional Director for Public Realm agree under delegated powers, to the making traffic orders under Sections 6, 45, 46, 84(1) and 124 of Part IV of Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and section 90C of the Highways Act 1980, to implement the proposed public realm improvements for the GRASS ROUTES as detailed in the delegated report circulated in October 2011.
I approve the above recommendations:
Signature ______Date ______
Carolyn Dwyer, Divisional Director Public Realm ______
Any declarations of interest (or exemptions granted): None
Issue / Interest declaredGrass Routes
Grass Routes
Grass Routes
Report history
Grass Routes
Decision type:Grass Routes
Non-key decisionGrass Routes
Date report drafted: / Date report logged on Officer Decisions sent (5 clear days before decision is to be taken) / Planned decision date:Grass Routes
24/02/12
/N/A
/29/02/12
Grass Routes
Report author and contact for queries:
Grass Routes
George Wright, Project Manager020 7926 0728
Grass Routes
Background documents
Grass Routes
GRASS ROUTES delegated report (October 2011)
GRASS ROUTES consultation reports
Scheme plans
Grass Routes
Grass Routes
Appendices
Grass Routes
Grass Routes
Grass Routes
1. GRASS ROUTES project
1.1 The GRASS ROUTES project area comprises the following streets: Caldwell Street, Liberty Street, Morat Street, Isabel Street, Hillyard Street, Hackford Road, Southey Road, Cranworth Gardens and part of Durand Gardens. Reay and Durand Primary schools are located at either end of the project area and the former Freeman’s factory site, now being redeveloped for housing borders Liberty Street. Whilst these streets will be the primary focus of the GRASS ROUTES project the proposed 20mph zone will also include Mowll Street, South Island Place, Crewsdon Road, Handforth Road, Durand Gardens Offley Road. The 20mph zone area is bordered by Clapham Road on the west and Brixton Road on the east.
1.2 The project area is largely residential with a large number of multi-occupancy properties, few of which have access to gardens. The nearest public open spaces are some walk away and involve crossing busy main roads. A high proportion of the housing in the area is owned by registered social landlords. There is also Caldwell Gardens estate run by Lambeth Living.
1.3 Most of the streets are lightly trafficked, with the exception of Caldwell Street that is a busy local rat run linking Stockwell with Camberwell. There are also occasionally problems with the school run resulting in pedestrian/vehicle conflicts around both Durand and Reay schools.
1.4 This project has evolved from the initial concept ideas developed by the local Streets Ahead residents group. The creation of a play street in Isabel Street and a greener neighbourhood has been central to the vision of Streets Ahead and this has formed the basis of the GRASS ROUTES scheme development. Since its inception in March 2010, the GRASS ROUTES project steering group has over seen the development of a package of improvements designed to fulfil this vision.
1.5 The steering group has overseen two pubic consultation exercises. The stage 1 consultation took place during May and June 2010 and the stage two consultation took place between 1 and 23 July 2011.
Grass Routes
2. Results of the Statutory Consultation
2.1 The statutory consultation period ran from 27January 2012 to 17 February 2012. The Council received objections/representations from The London Ambulance Service (LAS), The Association of British Drivers (ABD) and from residents of two properties on Hackford Road.
2.2 Details of the objections/representations are detailed below, with officer comments and recommendations.
Ref / Objection / Representation / Officer Comment & Recommendation /1. / LAS object to the traffic calming proposals for Caldwell Street, Hackford Road, Isabel Street, Liberty Street and Morat Street because measures such as speed humps and tables frequently cause additional discomfort and/or pain to patients while in transit. / The proposals were widely supported in the public consultation exercises and integral to the GRASS ROUTES vision. However, it is acknowledged that Caldwell Street is a principal route taken by ambulances and modifications are therefore outlined below.
Recommend OVERULE objection, with the exception of Caldwell Street where the proposed sinusoidal humps will not be introduced and the existing speed cushions will remain in situ.
2. / ABD object traffic calming proposals for Caldwell Street, Hackford Road, Isabel Street, Liberty Street and Morat Street, and the proposed Restricted Parking Zone in Isabel Street / The proposals were widely supported in the public consultation exercises and integral to the GRASS ROUTES vision.
Recommend OVERULE objections.
3. / Resident A of Hackford Road objects to the closure of Isabel Street and the one way working in Morat Street because of “increased traffic outside our house” and the reduction in parking spaces as a result of the proposals. / The proposals for Isabel Street were widely supported in the public consultation exercises and integral to the GRASS ROUTES vision. Moreover, traffic and parking analyses shows that traffic volumes are very low and there is a surplus of parking spaces.
Recommend OVERULE objections.
4. / Residents B/C of Hackford Road object to the closure of Isabel Street because “as a parking area (the street) works perfectly well”. / The proposals for Isabel Street were widely supported in the public consultation exercises and integral to the GRASS ROUTES vision.
Recommend OVERULE objections.
2.3 In summary, it is recommended that the objections are overruled, with the exception of the objection by the LAS to sinusoidal humps on Caldwell Street. The proposed sinusoidal humps at this location will not be progressed.
3. Comments from Executive Director of Finance and Resources
3.1 The Grass Routes project is part of the wider Public Realm engineering programme (Corridors, Neighbourhoods and Supporting Measures) included in the schedule of projects submitted to Transport for London for funding. The TfL funding agreed for 2011-12 (£3.065m) includes £320k for the Grass Routes Scheme and the balance of £127,250 is to be funded from Section 106 allocation (reference 437/L/S106).
4. Comments from Director of Governance and Democracy
4.1 The Council's powers to implement the measures proposed in this report are principally set out in the Highways Act 1980 (HA80) and Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA) and will require the making of Traffic Management Orders (TMO).
4.2 In making such Orders, the Council must follow the statutory consultation procedures set out in the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The said Regulations, prescribe inter alia, specific publication, consultation and notification requirements that must be strictly observed.
4.3 By virtue of section 122 of the RTRA, the Council must exercise its powers under the RTRA 1984 so as to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic including pedestrians, and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. These powers must be exercised so far as practicable having regard to the following matters:-
(a) the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises.
(b) the effect on the amenities of any locality affected including the regulation and restriction of heavy commercial traffic so as to preserve or improve amenity.
(c) the national air quality strategy.
(d) facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and securing the safety and
convenience of their passengers.
(e) any other matters appearing to the Council to be relevant
Changes to parking, waiting and loading arrangements and prohibitions
4.4 Sections 6, 45 and Part IV of Schedule 9 of the RTRA, enable the Council to implement, by Order (TMO), the proposed parking, waiting and loading arrangements in those streets to which this report refers and provides the power to prescribe streets which are not to be used for traffic by vehicles and routes to be followed by all classes of traffic.
Creation of a 20 MPH Zone
4.5 In order to implement such a zone, the Council would be required to make a TMO under Section 84 of the RTRA. Such an Order would prohibit motor vehicles from being driven at speeds exceeding that specified in the order. Section 85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 requires that the Council erect and maintain signs requisite for this purpose and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) details the signage requirements that would need to be observed.
4.6 A 20 mph zone is indicated by 20 mph zone entry and exit signs as specified in diagrams 674 and 675 of the TSRGD.
4.7 Direction 16(1) of the TSRGD stipulates that no point within such a zone be further than 50 metres from a traffic calming feature (unless in a cul-de-sac less than 80 meters long). Non-compliance with this requirement would render the zone unenforceable.
4.8 DfT guidance on the subject (Circular 1/2006) suggests that that the creation of 20 mph zones should be generally self policing and accompanied by appropriate traffic calming measures so as to facilitate effective enforcement. The Guidance goes on to suggest that authorities should take account of the level of police support required before implementing such a measure.
Traffic Calming
4.9 Road hump works are specifically authorised by Section 90A of the HA80 and must comply with the consultation and design requirements of the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999. The order making procedures and consultation requirements for the installation of road humps are set out in Section 90CA of the HA80 and detailed in the said Regulations. Those requirements include a duty to consult with:
· the chief police officer;
· the fire and rescue authority
· the chief officer of any body providing ambulance services;
· organisations appearing to represent persons who use the highway to which the proposal relates, or to represent persons who are otherwise likely to be affected by the road hump.
4.10 The Council is empowered under Section 90G and 90L of the HA80 to implement the traffic calming works proposed in this report. Such works must comply with the requirements of the Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999 (as amended) including the need for consultation.
Establishing a Zebra Crossing in Caldwell Street
4.11 Section 23 of the RTRA provides powers to establish; alter and remove crossings for pedestrians and requires that such crossings be indicated in the manner prescribed by Regulations made under Section 25 of the Act. The relevant regulations for this purpose are The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 and TSRGD.
4.13 Section 23(2) of the RTRA provides that before establishing a crossing the local traffic authority shall:
· Consult with the chief officer of police about their proposal to do so;
· Shall give public notice of that proposal to do so; and
· Shall inform the Secretary of State in writing
Provision of on-street secure cycle parking
4.14 The Council has powers under Part IV of the RTRA to provide off-street parking places (section 32) and to designate paying parking places on highways (section 45). Section 63 of the RTRA specifically extends those powers so as to enable the Council to provide in roads or elsewhere, stands, racks, or devices for securing, bicycles or motor cycles
Grass Routes
5. Consultation
5.1 The formal consultation was undertaken in accordance with the statutory procedure. The Notice of Proposal was advertised in the Lambeth Weekender and on street notices on 27 January 2012. Objections and recommendations were requested by 17 February 2012.
6. Organisational implications
Grass Routes
6.1 Risk management:
Grass Routes
The key risk would be the reputational damage to the Council. Given the considerable amount of local engagement and support for the project it would be very damaging to community relations if the project is not completed.
6.2 Equalities impact assessment:
An equality impact assessment has not been undertaken but these proposals are designed to benefit pedestrians and cyclists and will provide improved crossing facilities for mobility impaired residents.
Grass Routes
6.3 Community safety implications:
Grass Routes
Concerns relating possible anti-social behaviour in the proposed community space on Isabel Street have been raised by some residents during the consultation. Whilst the project team cannot guarantee an absence of anti-social behaviour, we will take on board the Secure by Design advice provided by the Metropolitan Police. This will include the provision of a power supply on lamp columns at each end of Isabel Street to enable a mobile CCTV camera to be installed if a problem develops at any time.
The project team has also engaged with the local Safer Neighbourhood Team and they will be able to monitor the new space as appropriate.
Grass Routes
6.4 Environmental implications:
Grass Routes
The proposals will deliver improvements to the public realm and engender civic pride.
Grass Routes
6.5 Staffing and accommodation implications:
Grass Routes
None.
Grass Routes
6.6 Procurement implications:
Grass Routes
None.
Grass Routes
6.7 Any other implications:
Grass Routes
None
Grass Routes
7. Timetable for implementation
Grass Routes
7.1 Timetable
Element / TimescaleStatutory notices / March 2012
Implementation / February 2012 – June 2012
______
Grass Routes