Agenda item

5.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report in relation to the North Sheffield Better Buses Project at Rutland Road/Pitsmoor Road.

5.2

RESOLVED: That:-

(a)

the scheme as shown in Appendix A be approved and implemented, subject to any required re-confirmation of costs after detailed design (including any commuted sums); and

(b)

the respondents be informed accordingly.

5.3

Reasons for Decision

5.3.1

The scheme described in this report will contribute to improving journey times and reliability for bus services along this route. At the same time it addresses the concerns of the one respondent.

5.3.2

The scheme is currently being designed in preliminary detail, with funding available to allow the scheme to progress to detailed design and construction in 2016/17.

5.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

5.4.1

The alternative to the scheme would be to do nothing, which would not address the issues that regularly occur at the location.

5.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

5.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

5.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

5.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing

5.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report in relation to the North Sheffield Better Buses Project at Rutland Road/Pitsmoor Road.

5.2

Richard Westaway, a local resident, attended the Session to make representations to the Cabinet Member. He accepted that there was no ideal solution to address the problems in the area and the proposals would go a long way to improving the situation.

5.3

Mr Westaway had observed a number of red light violations at the junction and there had been a number of crashes. The engineering aspect of the scheme would also not resolve problems of people turning at Minna Road into the junction. Traffic flow will be impaired and the situation would become more hazardous for pedestrians and the difficulties people experienced crossing on both sides of Rutland Road would only be increased. The proposed traffic island would help but people may get stranded on the island unable to cross. An on demand light facility could be the solution which would only come into effect when a pedestrian requested it.

5.4

Mr Westaway further commented that there was a problem with surface water caused by the position of the gulley outside 287 Rutland Road. The gulley outside Mr Westaway’s house was also permanently blocked, as a result the surface water increased the risk of accidents at the junction.

5.5

Prior to the road resurfacing, Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) were frequently getting stuck in the road. Despite the resurfacing this still occasionally occurred making the backlog of traffic even worse.

5.6

The proposals brought the road closer to residents and as a result it was hoped that Mr Westaway’s neighbour would be given a dropped kerb outside his property as he had requested.

5.7

An additional cycle advance area was needed on the approach to Minna Road. Mr Westaway then asked if there was any scope for consideration of making the area a 20mph limit given the proximity of the junctions and people turning on and off the road. Many road users also straddled the lanes because of the road markings, increasing the backlog, so Mr Westaway asked if a solid white demarcation line to define the lines could be introduced.

5.8

Mr Westaway concluded by asking for careful consideration of where street furniture was to be placed, as local residents will be reversing in and out of their properties, and whether there could be any mitigation measures introduced to address the issues of noise and pollution in the area.

5.9

Matt Turner made further representations to the Cabinet Member on behalf of Cycle Sheffield. He stated that the aim of the Council was to ensure 10% of journeys were made by bike within 10 years and the proposals in the report would put cyclists off from using the area. Advance stop lines were of little value.

5.10

Mr Turner did not wish to see highway capacity extension at the expense of pedestrians and the footway. Any pedestrians did not have access to a signal control, so there was a dangerous element. The scheme had also not been submitted to the Cycle Scheme Sub Committee despite assurances that all schemes would do so.

5.11

In response, Simon Botterill commented that, in respect of the red light abuse, cameras were only usually installed in areas where there were a high number of accidents and the evidence suggested that accidents in this area were mainly damage to vehicles rather than injury.

5.12

The drainage issues were in the process of being investigated. Officers would try and incorporate as many of the requests as they could into the scheme whilst bearing in mind the funding was coming from bus operators with the intention of easing congestion and improving journey times. He was surprised about the comments regarding skid resistance as the road resurfacing should have improved that but that could be tested.

5.13

James Burdett, Highways Engineer, reported that he had met with Mr Westaway to try and resolve some of his issues. The junction was very intensively used and it was hoped that the extended right turn would help with that. Regarding Mr Westaways’ request for a yellow box at the junction, officers would assess the scheme once it had been implemented to see if a yellow box was needed. It was hoped, given the cost implications, that it would not be needed.

5.14

The road needed to be reprofiled in full if the scheme was approved, so many of Mr Westaway’s requests could be looked at at that stage. His neighbour would be getting the dropped kerb he had requested.

5.15

Simon Botterill added that he didn’t believe Rutland Road was an appropriate road for a 20mph limit, although the policy on 20mph limits had been amended so as not to exclude B and C category roads.  Consideration will, however, be given to including this part of Rutland Road within the 20 mph programme when this area is due for assessment. 

5.16

Simon Botterill believed that the scheme was an acceptable one for pedestrians. Although he acknowledged that it did remove some of the footway, it did not take it all away and it did not reduce it lower than the normal level of provision. There was a balance to take in ensuring the scheme met the needs of the bus operators whilst not having an adverse impact on pedestrians.

5.17

The scheme had had a cycle audit and no adverse issues had been raised. It was the responsibility of the Cycle Auditor to take the scheme to the Cycle Sub Group and he would liaise with the Auditor to ensure this took place in the future.

5.18

RESOLVED: That:-

(a)

the highway scheme on Rutland Road, between Cooks Wood Road and Pitsmoor Road, as shown in Appendix A, be approved and implemented, subject to any required re-confirmation of costs after detailed design (including any commuted sums); and

(b)

the respondents be informed accordingly.

5.19

Reasons for Decision

5.19.1

The scheme described in the report will contribute to improving journey times and reliability for bus services along this route. At the same time it addresses the concerns of the one respondent.

5.19.2

The scheme is currently being designed in preliminary detail, with funding available to allow the scheme to progress to detailed design and construction in 2016/17.

5.20

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

5.20.1

The alternative to the scheme would be to do nothing, which would not address the issues that regularly occur at the location.