Agenda item

4.1

New Petitions

There were no new petitions to report.

4.2

Public Question in respect of the Wadsley Bridge Supermarket Highway Works

Matt Turner commented that, on 9 May 2013, this Session was told that the zebra crossings would not be removed as part of the Wadsley Bridge Supermarket, as recorded in the minutes at paragraph 3.7, in response to his concern about them being removed. They had now been removed and the replacement crossings were not functioning. There were now no crossings across these roads (Penistone Road and Leppings Lane). He therefore asked why had these been removed, and why were they removed before the replacement crossings were finished?

Mark Simons, Highways Officer, commented that he shared Mr Turner’s frustrations. He had not been in attendance at the Session on 9 May 2013 so couldn’t comment on what had been said but it was always the intention to remove the crossing. The current situation was, however, unacceptable.

The highway scheme for Sainsbury’s had proved problematic as he believed Sainsburys had not done enough work to establish the locations of the Statutory Undertakers equipment. This has resulted in some necessary changes to the design as the scheme was being constructed (and as a result some delay had occurred). Slightly further along the A61 was the Council’s Pinchpoint scheme. The work here was being undertaken by Amey and managed by the Council. The Pinchpoint Scheme was planned well in advance and the Statutory Undertakers work programmed accordingly.

Mark Simons managed what were known as Section 278 schemes where developers were allowed to appoint their own contactors to undertake works on the public highway. Whilst the Council could no longer insist on undertaking highway works for private developers it still had a responsibility to ensure that works were undertaken in the right way.

The Sainsbury’s scheme had had design changes and issues with the statutory undertakers works causing delay and this has resulted in the scheme evolving whilst on site. As a result of the issues arising from this, Mr Simons had suggested that the Council reviewed how all Section 278 legal agreements were managed in the future. At the zebra crossing referred to by Mr Turner, Mr Simons had been promised that alternative arrangements would be operational within two days which had not been the case.

There had been issues with the road surface where the zebra crossing was and as a result this had to be resurfaced. A Road Safety Audit had been undertaken which accepted that for a short period of time, pedestrians could be signed to cross in the location of the old zebra crossing, but to take care.

The Council had not received a satisfactory response from Siemens, who were responsible for providing the permanent alternative crossing facilities, despite numerous requests.

RESOLVED: That the Director of Regeneration and Development Services be requested to liaise with Sainsbury’s and inform them of the City Council’s request that, should a permanent crossing not be installed to replace the zebra crossing which had been removed as part of the works associated with the Wadsley Bridge Supermarket, a temporary crossing be installed as soon as possible in the interests of road safety.