Skip to content

Agenda item

Coisley Hill / Sheffield Road Zebra Crossing

Decision:

6.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report outlining the objections received to proposals for a zebra crossing on Coisley Hill / Sheffield Road, Woodhouse. The report sought a decision on how the scheme should be progressed in light of this objection.

 

 

6.2

RESOLVED: That:-

 

 

 

(a)

the crossing be implemented, subject to marginal re-location if possible;

 

 

 

 

(b)

the waiting restrictions around the corners of Ashwell Road are implemented; and

 

 

 

 

(c)

the objector is informed of the decision taken.

 

 

 

6.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

6.3.1

The new survey confirms that the zebra in the proposed location best serves the main pedestrian desire line for the majority of the time.

 

 

6.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

6.4.1

Doing nothing has been considered, that is not implementing the proposed zebra crossing. This would mean that conditions for pedestrians crossing Sheffield Road would remain unimproved. Also recruitment and retention of School Crossing Wardens is difficult. If the current warden left and the position was not filled then the main pedestrian desire line would be left unprotected.

 

 

6.4.2

Relocating the crossing has been considered. This would address the concerns raised that the proposed crossing does not serve pedestrian movements to the shop, working men’s club and bus stops. However, no other suitable safe location has been identified.  Moving the crossing slightly nearer the shop move mean removing all the parking outside the shop.  There is not enough physical room to put it between Wolverley Road and Ashwell Road and would mean that at least one bus stop would need to be moved. Moving the crossing near to the Social Club would mean substantial loss of residential parking and again moving at least one bus stop.  It would leave the stronger desire line by the school, albeit one only used for relatively short periods of the day, unprotected, perhaps increasing risk to people crossing at this point including the school crossing patrol.

 

 

6.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

 

 

 

None

 

 

6.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

 

 

 

None

 

 

6.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

 

 

 

Laraine Manley, Executive Director, Place

 

 

6.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

 

 

 

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing

 

Minutes:

6.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report outlining the objections received to proposals for a zebra crossing on Coisley Hill / Sheffield Road, Woodhouse. The report sought a decision on how the scheme should be progressed in light of this objection.

 

 

6.2

Ms. Debbie Naughton and her mother, Mrs Celia Hurst, attended the Session to make representations to the Cabinet Member. Ms Naughton commented that the proposed crossing was in the wrong location and should be closer to local amenities where accidents had previously occurred. It would cause a danger to pedestrians and cause motorists to break the law.

 

 

6.3

Ms. Naughton added that Gay Horsfield, Transport Planner, had attended the site with Ms. Naughton at 167 Sheffield Road and had agreed to forward Ms. Naughton’s concerns to the independent road safety auditor. Despite this, the road safety auditor had concluded that there were no safety issues and no reason why the residents of 167 Sheffield Road couldn’t exit their drive safely.

 

 

6.4

Ms. Naughton believed that if the crossing was introduced she would be forced to stop on the zebra crossing to reverse into her drive. Other motorists would likely assume that she was stopping for pedestrians and would pull up behind leaving no room for her to reverse further. Schoolchildren would also be running across the bottom of the drive causing a danger when reversing in.

 

 

6.5

Ms. Naughton stated that it had been agreed at a public meeting in January 2015 that there was a conflict of interest between pedestrians and car users at this location. Measures proposed since then would make it even more dangerous. Why then was there now seen to be no conflict of interest?

 

 

6.6

If the scheme were to go ahead, Ms. Naughton requested that she wished the angle of the drive at 167 Sheffield Road to stay the same, as it appeared to be straight on the plans when the angle currently was not straight. She also requested that the beacons be sited between the two windows of 167 and 169 Sheffield Road and not directly in front of the living room window of her mother, Mrs Hurst, at number 167. The light of the beacons should be kept to a minimum and hooded.

 

 

6.7

Simon Botterill acknowledged that this was a difficult location. The request for a crossing had come from the local school to allow its children to cross safely. If the school was not there then there would be no need for a crossing.

 

 

6.8

Celia Hurst responded that children would still run out to the crossing and not wait for the lollipop lady further down so there was nothing to say the crossing would improve safety. In response to this, Gay Horsfield commented that, if this was the case, more road safety education may need to be provided for children of the school.

 

 

6.9

In response to the comments from Ms. Naughton and Mrs Hurst, Councillor Mazher Iqbal asked officers to confirm if the road safety auditor had confirmed that it was safe to install a crossing at this location? Gay Horsfield confirmed that this was the case. Councillor Iqbal then commented that the road safety auditor would have taken everything into consideration and would not put children’s safety at risk. Councillor Iqbal also requested that officers investigate reducing the light on the beacons, as requested. Gay Horsfield reported that the beacons will have cowls on them.

 

 

6.10

Debbie Naughton then asked, if the scheme were to proceed, could the location of the beacon be moved as had been requested? Simon Botterill confirmed that this would be investigated to see if it was possible. Ms. Naughton then asked what had changed from the previous meeting where it was stated that there was a conflict of interest at this location? Simon Botterill responded that everything highways officers did had potential conflicts and it was the job of officers to strike a balance which was suitable for all. The previous scheme had had complaints about parking issues. Officers had looked at other locations for the crossing but these were not suitable.

 

 

6.11

In conclusion, Councillor Iqbal stated that he would approve the recommendations but requested officers look into whether the beacon could be marginally moved. He further requested that details of the Road Safety Audit be sent to Ms. Naughton and Mrs Hurst and that it be recorded that Mrs Hurst’s drive will not be altered as part of the scheme.

 

 

6.12

RESOLVED: That:-

 

 

 

(a)

the zebra crossing on Coisley Hill/Sheffield Road, Woodhouse be implemented, subject to marginal re-location if possible;

 

 

 

 

(b)

the waiting restrictions around the corners of Ashwell Road are implemented; and

 

 

 

 

(c)

the objector be informed of the decision taken.

 

 

 

6.13

Reasons for Decision

 

 

6.13.1

The new survey confirms that the zebra crossing in the proposed location best serves the main pedestrian desire line for the majority of the time.

 

 

6.14

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

6.14.1

Doing nothing has been considered, that is not implementing the proposed zebra crossing. This would mean that conditions for pedestrians crossing Sheffield Road would remain unimproved. Also recruitment and retention of School Crossing Wardens is difficult. If the current warden left and the position was not filled then the main pedestrian desire line would be left unprotected.

 

 

6.14.2

Relocating the crossing has been considered. This would address the concerns raised that the proposed crossing does not serve pedestrian movements to the shop, working men’s club and bus stops. However, no other suitable safe location has been identified.  Moving the crossing slightly nearer the shop would mean removing all the parking outside the shop.  There is not enough physical room to put it between Wolverley Road and Ashwell Road and would mean that at least one bus stop would need to be moved. Moving the crossing near to the Social Club would mean substantial loss of residential parking and, again, moving at least one bus stop.  It would leave the stronger desire line by the school, albeit one only used for relatively short periods of the day, unprotected, perhaps increasing risk to people crossing at this point including the school crossing patrol.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: