Urgent Portfolio Holder Decision on Marston Bay Hog Gyratory

BOROUGH OF POOLE

CALL-IN OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

FRIDAY 16 SEPTEMBER 2011

URGENT PORTFOLIO HOLDER DECISION ON MARSTON/BAY HOG GYRATORY: REPORT OF HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

1.PURPOSE

1.1To consider the process leading up to the decision taken by Cllr Mrs Dion as Portfolio Holder on 2 August 2011 regarding the making and implementation of the Traffic Regulation Orders to facilitate the Marston/Bay Hog Gyratory.

1.2To consider the validity of the urgency of the decision.

2.BACKGROUND

2.1The reasons for the call-in have been given as follows:

(a)Inadequate consultation on the specific gyratory scheme proposed. All consultation, other than the TROs, that took place related to more general aspects of regeneration and the bridge and not this particular scheme per se.

(b)As a result of 2.1 (a) above, there was little or no public engagement in the processes which led to formulation of this specific gyratory system.

(c)It was claimed all possible alternatives had been tested and evaluated, but when an alternative was proposed during the debate it was categorically stated that that scheme had not been tested and evaluated. The process would therefore appear to be flawed.

(d)Significant and relevant reports, together with their findings, especially that by CABE and that by Michael Hayes Consultants had never been brought to the attention of the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee or Full Council. Elected Members were therefore being asked to make recommendations and decisions without all the relevant information, thus rendering the recommendations and decisions flawed.

(e)Not enough consideration of the alternatives whichwere presented for most of the process as a single option.

(f)The decision was not urgent and could be taken after more consultation with concerned people.

3.OFFICERRESPONSE TO REASONS FOR “CALL IN”

3.1Inadequate consultation on the specific gyratory scheme proposed.

3.1.1Public engagement on the wider Poole Bridge Regeneration Initiative (PBRI), within which the proposals for Marston/Bay Hog Gyratory are clearly shown, has been undertaken through the following:

(a)March 2001. Stakeholder meetings at Port of Poole.

(b)July 2001. Local Transport Plan LTP1 published – full details of PBRI network shown in Volume 6.

(c)November 2001. 6 weeks consultation on draft Local Plan, including PBRI town-side network.

(d)September 2002. 6 weeks consultation on town Centre Master Plan.

(e)October 2002. Local Plan Inquiry – PBRI policies remain. Adopted March 2004.

(f)July 2005. 7 month consultation on SE Dorset LTP2, includes brief description of PBRI. Final version published March 2006.

(g)2005 Core Strategy consultation. Adopted February 2009.

(h)September 2010. 6 weeks consultation on options for infrastructure and site specific DPD.

(i)Further approximately 20 exhibitions/ seminars focussed on the PBRI network.

Engagement of stakeholders and interested parties in the process of developing transport solutions is the subject of the forthcoming Select Committee.

3.1.2Public engagement on the specific Marston/Bay Hog Gyratory scheme consisted of the following:

(a)8 July 2004 TAG – Options for traffic arrangements for the lower West Street/West Quay Road/Bay Hog Lane between the two bridges. One way system for this section confirmed.

(b)5 June 2008 TAG – Information Report on MBHG (includes description of one way system).

(c)6 January 2011 TAG – Approval to proceed with design of MBHG using the S106 Asda contributions (includes description and plan of one way system).

(d)8 January 2011 and later dates – Public Meeting and Exhibition regarding Marston Link and Old Town Gyratory

(e)9 March 2011 Hamworthy East & West and Poole Town Area Committee – Seeking views on proposed scheme to go to TAG.

(f)14 April 2011 Planning Committee – Planning Approval for Marston Road.

(g)21 April 2011 TAG – Approval of MBHG subject to advertising of TROs (includes description and plan of one way system).

(h)2 June 2011 EOS – Overview & Scrutiny of MBHG funding arrangement (includes description and plan of one way system).

(i)21 June 2011 Council – approval of funding for MBHG.

(j)28 July 2011 TAG – Approval of TROs for MBHG (includes description and plan of one way system).

3.1.3In addition the MBHG scheme has been referred to in the following Committee reports:

(a)20 September 2007 TAG – approval for Asda/RNLI link as first phase of Hunger Hill “Slim Gyratory” junction improvement.

(b)3 April 2008 TAG – Approval for phased implementation of Hunger Hill slim gyratory and Marston/Bay Hog gyratory schemes.

(d)8 January 2009 TAG – Approval to submit planning applications for elements of Hunger Hill and Marston/Bay Hog gyratories.

(e)6 January 2011 TAG – Approval for VMS signs associated with operation of two bridges.

3.2Little or no public engagement in the process which led to the formulation of Marston/Bay Hog gyratory.

3.2.1Section 3.1 above shows that there has been extensive opportunity for the public, stakeholders and Membersto express their view on the scheme. The public meeting, Area Committee, Planning, and TRO process were widely advertised giving ample opportunity for the local community to be engaged directly. The TAG meetingin July considering the TRO objections provided ample evidence that there had been extensive public engagement in this process.

3.2.2The wider consultation process had been outlined by the Head of Transportation at the TAG meeting of 28 July 2011. At this meeting he provided documentary evidence of the wider consultation

3.3Testing and evaluation of alternatives.

3.3.1The referencesto the testing and evaluation of alternatives made by the Head of Transportation Services in addressing the 28 July 2011 TAG meeting, was in relation to the wider PBRI network.

3.3.2A number of options, including a two way traffic scheme similar to that proposed by the objectors, were evaluatedby Terence O’Rourke, Planning Consultants employed to oversee this process, as part of the original masterplanning process. All but the preferred scheme were rejected on urban design principles based on a number of factors such as the complexity of associated junctions, land take, and severance caused by all the through traffic being on one main road.

3.3.3Scheme development and option selection is to be examined in detail at the forthcoming Select Committee process. The general design process was summarised by the Head of Transportation at the July 28th TAG meeting itself.

3.4Significant and relevant reports,especially that by CABE and by Michael Hayes, consultants, were never brought to the attention of Economy Overview & Scrutiny Committee or Full Council.

3.4.1This statement is true in terms of specific reference to the reports themselves. However, this does not mean that the Officers did not make use of the content in subsequent work. The design process for a scheme such as this includes manyworkshops and officer meetings, both internal and external.It would be impractical to refer to them all in detail within reports to members. Many are inputs that then result in recommendation to Councillors.

3.4.2The CABE meeting was a one day officer workshop, called primarily to facilitate closer working between Transportation and Planning officers in developing proposals for the Hunger Hill Gyratory. Understandably during this time the two CABE officers had very limited opportunity to gain an in depth understanding of the complexities around the PBRI network, in particular:

the complexity of traffic system required to switch traffic flows between the two lifting bridges
in depth knowledge of the town centre road network and the need to accommodate through and local traffic movement
the full detail of development and associated complex legal agreements that had already been progressed within the area itself.
the associated traffic flows, both existing and predicted
land and funding consultants

The report itself indicates that it is only an overview and comments made in this draft report should therefore be considered in this context. The detail of the Marston Link Road proposal was not discussed in detail at the meeting itself.

Notwithstanding this a number of the points made in the CABE report have indeed been taken onboard in the development of the Marston/Bay Hog gyratory proposals, including:

a)A multi-disciplinary team, the Town Centre Regeneration Task Group, was established consisting of officers from all of the various disciplines including Transportation, Planning, Property and Legal. This governance was set up and designed to feed into the long established top level Strategy Group that includes within its membership the Strategic Director, Service Unit Heads for Transportation, Strategic Planning, Property, Legal and Finance which in turn reports to the appropriate Board.

b)Engineering officers subsequently assessed the case studies from other areas as listed in the report itself.

c)The Marston/Bay Hog gyratory scheme does indeed fulfil the CABE success criteria (CABE quotes in italics). The CABE report is attached for information.

Safe, congestion-free, reliable access and movement for allThe scheme minimises traffic conflict and provides more direct through and cross town routes.

Increased non-car journeys.

The scheme provides for on road/shared cycling facilities throughout, together with wider pavements and controlled crossing facilities for pedestrians where possible. It has been planned in a phased manner to ensure that longer term wider scale phases would result in a comprehensive and fully joined up cycle provision. This was reported at various committees as was the helpful input from stakeholder groups.

Integration into town centre.

The scheme is complementary to the existing road network, with the exception of Marston Road being built within the existing highway boundary. The design objective was to minimise the impact on the existing built environment.

Intangible Quality.

The new Marston Road has through the planning process been designed using high quality paving materials, boundary treatment, landscaping and street furniture. This has involved detailed and prolonged liaison and most helpful input from Planning colleagues throughout. The process itself allowed for Planning Conditions which were very detailed and all met in full prior to proceeding towards the final TRO process. Stakeholder input from a variety of sources has also had considerable impact in the development of the scheme prior to its final form being presented for final approval.

Quayside character applied to ‘island’ streets.

Marston Road has been developed through the Place Shaping process defined in the latest guidance Manual for Streets 2.

d)Michael Hayes consultant’s report (Attached). The work of Michael Hayes Consultants was to review the Central Poole Area SPG and associated masterplanning. It provides advice on developing SPD and has regard to the CABE workshop report.

This independent work confirms (in 2011) that the masterplanning and SPG provide a strong and enduring vision; that the SPG adopted in 2004 has important and continuing relevance; provides a strong urban design framework to guide the development of sites, provision of infrastructure and creation of a unique, high quality place.

The report recommends, given current economic and political circumstances that there is a strong case to focus effort on delivery, putting the plans into action albeit with greater corporate support on place shaping and better ways of communicating the strong plans.

The report continues that “The principles of design, land use, building footprint and form, transport interventions and public realm ambitions are soundly argued, well illustrated and provide a strong foundation for moving to a positive delivery phase.” Indeed the Council was commended on its work over the last decade in visioning and planning the future of the West Quay and wider Central area.

The transportation technical work has always been undertaken to provide outcomes that relate directly to the longstanding Poole Central Area SPG itself devised through the masterplanning process. Members should note that in October 2010 the Central Government as part of its CSR wiped out the medium term funding that had been allocated as part of the regional funds (RFA2) towards the Poole Town Centre Regeneration. As a result the emphasis changed from Hunger Hill towards the more direct access arrangements for the immediate bridge area and to make best use of the significantly reduced funding remaining in the short term.

3.5Not enough consideration of alternatives.

As stated in items 3.1.1 a number of alternatives for the wider PBRI network were considered in establishing the preferred masterplan option.

Since that time officers, through the planning process, have sought to secure land and funding to deliver the preferred option. All private developments and interim highway schemes have been undertaken in line with this overall masterplan. In the case of the MBHG scheme therefore while there is indeed the opportunity to consider alternatives regarding the detail of any scheme – and indeed the development of the Marston Road scheme itself was undertaken on this basis – any fundamental alternatives to the scheme could not be considered without having a significant impact on the land and funding available and the approved wider network proposals.

Certainly the alternative option put forward by the objectors of two way streets and road closures would undoubtedly require a total redesign of the wider scheme proposals. As the Head of Transportation indicated on the 28th July 2011 TAG meeting the need for network improvements is as a direct result of the regeneration itself. The regeneration area masterplanning is fundamentally designed to reduce the need to travel by providing redevelopment in a town centre location. This through its many reports had been devised through a Strategic Planning led process involving external consultants and iterative place shaping processes. Good access is only one element of a successful regeneration of the Central Area.

3.6The decision was not urgent.

The decision was considered as urgent for the following reasons:

A start date of early August was required for the scheme to fit with the construction programme for the Twin Sails bridge, aiming for completion in January 2012. This programme has been presented to previous committees as part of the design approval process. Indeed the correct project timetable provided to EOS Members in June showed that even with full approval to proceed in August certain aspects of the scheme would not be completed before the bridge opening itself,such was the urgency of approval. Officers provided a summary of the dis-benefit in terms of added delay and cost that would be incurred in the event of Members deciding not to progress with the scheme.

Early implementation would avoid the need for a subsequent modification to the new West Quay Road/bridge approach junction. In addition there would be further costs for subsequent changes required to Variable Message Signs and static road direction signs. The Head of Transportation and Engineering Manager have already explained to Members at various committees that the cost difference would be in the order of £200,000. Members understood the practicality of the situation and were provided such evidence in summary format in Appendix B of the 2nd June 2011 Overview & Scrutiny report before supporting approval for the funding of the scheme to Council.

It would minimise the impact of the construction works on local residents and travelling public by only doing the works once.