Agenda item

7.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report informing Members of comments received following public consultation on proposed highway works on Main Road, Darnall, relating to the construction of the new health centre. The report included a response to the comments received and recommended that a scheme be approved.

7.2

Mr Driver, a local resident made representations to the Committee that he favoured Option 2 as outlined in the report as he did not believe that a pedestrian refuge was needed as this would draw people away from the main crossing further down the road.

7.3

Melanie Dewar, Practice Manager at the local Dental Surgery, made further representations to the Committee that she believed that the proposals would not allow patients to park nearby or be dropped off and this would cause difficulties for those with disabilities who were currently escorted onto the premises. She also questioned the proposed location for the pedestrian refuge and did not believe that pedestrians would use the facility.

7.4

Members commented that they endorsed the representations heard at the meeting from members of the public. They believed that Option 2 presented in the report was the most appropriate and did contain additional safety measures. Members also requested a review of the scheme be undertaken six months after its implementation to assess its success.

7.5

Members further expressed concern that NHS Sheffield were not adhering to the nature of the planning condition to provide parking in the area by charging a high rate and restricting the hours at which the parking facility could be used. They requested that their concerns be raised with NHS Sheffield.  

7.6

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)

overrules the objections to the Traffic Regulation Orders, as discussed in paragraph 4.10 of the report, in the interests of pedestrian safety, and requests that the Orders be made in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;

(b)

approves the construction of the scheme designs, as shown in Appendix D-TM-BR250-C1 Option 2 of the report;

(c)

requests that a review of the scheme be undertaken in approximately six months following its implementation;

(d)

requests that the Executive Director, Place enter into discussions with NHS Sheffield with a view to seeking a financial contribution should additional works be required following the outcome of the review; and

(e)

requests that all respondents be informed of the decisions made.

7.7

Reasons For The Decision

7.7.1

The Transport Assessment submitted with the planning application was fundamental in defining the highway-related conditions on the planning consent. The measures developed to address the relevant planning conditions had been further consulted upon throughout the immediate area, with significant changes made. The recommendation relating to progression of the measures followed an indication of full or partial support from a majority of respondents asked directly. However, this then becomes a minority when the 277 petition signatures were taken into account.

7.7.2

Two options had been presented within the report – Option One included a pedestrian island and Option Two without the island. The island was included in the original proposal. Both options 1 and two were presented as acceptable by officers. However, as the pedestrian island was not part of the planning conditions – the decision for which option to approve rested largely on the balance between retaining residentsand visitor parking, including drop off to the dental surgery, against improving pedestrian facilities.

7.7.3

It was acknowledged that the majority of people who responded to the consultation – including a petition of 277 signatures, did not support the pedestrian island and associated waiting restrictions. However, it was anticipated that the medical centre would bring with it an increased desire for pedestrians to cross at this location. Main Road is a wide, heavily trafficked, classified road which presented a challenge, for those less able to cross. For this reason officers favoured Option 1 which contained the pedestrian island.

7.7.4

Having considered the report and the representations at the meeting, Members considered that Option 2 outlined in the report presented the best option as it provided safety measures as well as allowing people to park close to the dental surgery. A review six months following the implementation of the scheme would give a clear indication whether this had been successful.

7.8

Alternative Options Considered And Rejected

7.8.1

The planning conditions identified the mitigation measures which subsequently formed the basis of the associated highway proposals, as seen in Appendix A of the report.

7.8.2

As discussed within the report, the mitigation measures had been revised in response to comments received during the public consultations, in effect resulting in the development of alternative solutions/options.