Agenda item

Coisley Hill - Objections to Proposed Traffic Calming

Report of the Executive Director, Place

Decision:

8.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report outlining objections received to proposals for the introduction of traffic calming and a pedestrian crossing, along with associated waiting restrictions, on Coisley Hill and Sheffield Road, Woodhouse. The report sought a decision on how the scheme should be progressed in light of these objections.

 

 

8.2

RESOLVED: That a decision on the scheme be deferred to a future meeting pending further consideration of the location of the proposed zebra pedestrian crossing.

 

 

8.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

8.3.1

To consider the objections received in greater detail.

 

 

8.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

8.4.1

Implementing the scheme as advertised was considered but rejected owing to objectors’ concerns.

 

 

8.4.2

Abandoning the scheme was considered but rejected given apparent support for the scheme in principle.

 

 

8.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

 

 

 

None

 

 

8.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

 

 

 

None

 

 

8.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

 

 

 

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

 

 

8.8

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 objections received to proposals for the introduction of traffic calming and a pedestrian crossing, along with associated waiting restrictions, on Coisley Hill and Sheffield Road, Woodhouse. The report sought a decision on how the scheme should be progressed in light of these objections.

 

 

6.2

Nat Porter, Highways Officer, informed the Cabinet Member that he had received representations from a local resident who had not been able to attend the Session but wished to inform them that he fully supported the measures proposed.

 

 

6.3

Debbie Naughton, a local resident attended the Session to make representations to the Cabinet Member. She commented that she believed local residents were being punished as a result of the actions of parents and children of the nearby school. They had ignored the current restrictions which were in place so she had no confidence that they would comply with the restrictions proposed.

 

 

6.4

Ms. Naughton believed the proposed crossing was in the wrong location and should be sited closer to Wolverley Road which would be the more appropriate location for pedestrians to cross. She added that coaches used by the school regularly parked on double yellow and zig zag lines. If the proposals were agreed other vehicles would have to overtake the coaches which would create a potential danger.

 

 

6.5

Ms. Naughton stated that the drive at 167 Coisley Hill required access as two disabled users lived there. She had discussed this with Mr Porter and disagreed with him on the distances. Work undertaken for the scheme would be 11ft from number 167 and the beacon would glare into the house. If this was sited slightly closer to the school the beacon would be between two houses.

 

 

6.6

There was an 11ft clearance from the drive of number 167 to the proposed crossing. This would make seeing pedestrians from the drive very difficult and create a danger as cars would have to reverse out from number 167.

 

 

6.7

Janet Barry, a resident of Ashpool Close, also attended the Session to make representations to the Cabinet Member. She stated that she was not in principal opposed to a crossing in the area. However, she was disabled and had responsibility for transporting a disabled person at number 167 Coisley Hill. She currently had to reverse from the drive of number 167 and she had concerns that if a crossing was put in the location proposed many children would not realise that there was a drive at number 167.

 

 

6.8

She believed that the observations in the area referred to in the report must have been done during school times and they needed to also be done at other times to assess the general use in the area. If the crossing was moved closer to Wolverley Road it would be used at all times of the day and not just during school hours.

 

 

6.9

Parking restrictions currently in place in the area were ignored especially during school times and Ms. Barry believed the proposals were punishing local residents when the problems had not been caused by them. Traffic using Sheffield Road was not aware of the drive at number 167 and were therefore not allowing room for the car to reverse out of the drive.

 

 

6.10

Ms. Barry did not believe the consultation process had been extensive. Her mother had not been notified by the Council and she lived at the location where the crossing was proposed. She had to phone the Council to find out about the proposals.

 

 

6.11

Celia Hurst, a local resident, stated that she lived at the property where the proposed crossing would be located. Work was being undertaken at the location at the present time prior to any decision being taken and was already causing problems for pedestrians who were having to walk out into the road.

 

 

6.12

Janet Barry asked where the footpath was proposed to be widened and how would this be done? She was worried about road safety and breaking the law as she would have to reverse out onto a pedestrian crossing. The crossing should be located further up near Wolverley Road where it would have more use as there were two housing estates, a shop, working man’s club and a bus stop. If the crossing was for the benefit of the school could this not be located at the top of Coisley Hill where it would mean parents would only have to walk a little bit further? She further commented that the speed limit should be reduced around the school and there should be enforcement around the school during school hours

 

 

6.13

Councillor Ray Satur also attended the Session to make representations to the Cabinet Member. He commented that he was speaking on behalf of the owner of a small independent retailer on Sheffield Road. She had requested two parking spaces outside her shop as she relied on passing trade and also had deliveries to the shop. She also had a severely disabled son who needed to be transported. Her request was supported by a 171 signature petition.

 

 

6.14

Nat Porter responded that, because the demand at school times was so great, it was not felt to not be appropriate to provide the crossing near Wolverley Road and leave the school crossing site unprotected. He did have sympathy with the residents’ view that a crossing was needed near Wolverley Road but he felt this should be an additional crossing to the one proposed and not instead of the one proposed.

 

 

6.15

Mr Porter added that levels would be put on the beacons to minimise the light pollution. The detailed design had suggested moving the crossing further west and would now be erected on the boundary between numbers 165 and 167. The beacon would be bracketed off to allow flexibility in how it would be directed and it was hoped to place the beacon as close to the boundary as possible.

 

 

6.16

Moaz Khan, Interim Head of Transport, Traffic and Parking Services, commented that it was not uncommon to see the access for a drive near a pedestrian crossing and this actually improved safety rather than cause a danger as had been suggested.

 

 

6.17

In response to questions from Cabinet Members, Nat Porter confirmed that more work was needed to assess whether people would migrate to an alternative crossing at Wolverley Road. Moving the crossing to that location would lead to similar concerns from residents about private access.

 

 

6.18

Following concerns raised by officers as to funding for the scheme, officers agreed to look again at funding for a scheme in the area. Cabinet Members further requested that discussions be held with the local school to obtain their views on the scheme.

 

 

6.2

RESOLVED: That a decision on the scheme be deferred to a future meeting pending further consideration of the location of the proposed zebra pedestrian crossing.

 

 

6.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

6.3.1

To consider the objections received in greater detail.

 

 

6.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

6.4.1

Implementing the scheme as advertised was considered but rejected owing to objectors’ concerns.

 

 

6.4.2

Abandoning the scheme was considered but rejected given apparent support for the scheme in principle.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: