Agenda item

Following the recent introduction of off-road cycle facilities on the east side of Beckfield Lane between Boroughbridge Road and Ostman Road, this report looks at extending these facilities to maximise the potential for promoting safe and sustainable travel to nearby schools, shops and other facilities.

RESOLVED:               That the Executive Member approves:

(i)                 The amended scheme as shown in Annex E, of the report, for construction;

(ii)               The layout, and subsequent engineering works, being refined to permit the easy installation of a Toucan crossing near the Runswick Avenue shops on Beckfield Lane at a later date, should this prove necessary;

(iii)             Officers continuing to consider how safety improvements can be made for pedestrian and cyclists crossing Wetherby Road at its junction with Beckfield Lane and

(iv)              Officers being asked to ensure that any “shared use” areas of path being clearly delineated in line with emerging standards specification.

REASON: To extend the existing cycle facilities in order to provide a complete cycle route on Beckfield Lane whilst trying to address resident’s comments and concerns about the original proposals, where possible.

Following the recent introduction of off-road cycle facilities on the east side of Beckfield Lane between Boroughbridge Road and Ostman Road the Executive Member considered a report, which examined the extension of these facilities. The proposed scheme had been developed to maximise the potential for promoting safe and sustainable travel to nearby schools, shops and other local facilities whilst aiming to minimise likely construction difficulties and costs.

The Executive Member referred to the consultation results. The Council’s cyclist’s post back survey had resulted in 49 out of 68 in favour of the proposals, letters from residents had shown 9 in favour with 12 against and 3 with no strong feelings either way. A petition in opposition signed by 22 households and following publication of the proposals on the website 1 comment had been received in favour and 2 comments in opposition. Since the agenda had been published 2 further responses from residents had been received, one with concerns about access across Beckfield Lane near the shops and across Wetherby Road. Carr Infant School had also indicated support for the proposals.

It was reported that since the agenda had been published a 12 hour traffic survey had been carried out on Thursday 8 October 2009 south of Knapton Lane. This survey had recorded around 7300 vehicle movement’s on-road and 100 on the footway.

Representations in relation to the proposals were received from Mary Fairbrother on behalf of York Blind and Partially Sighted Society. She stated that there were over 1000 members of the Society in York and considerably more residents who had some problems with sight or were vulnerable in relation to their age. She stated that shared use footpaths/cycle tracks were very unnerving for these users. She pointed out that the majority of local residents were opposed the off road facilities and she asked the Executive Member not to support the scheme.

Representations against the scheme were received from Dee Bush, a resident of Beckfield Lane. She confirmed that as a cycling family and resident of the area for a number of years she supported the provision of off road cycle facilities but only where they did not share space with vulnerable pedestrians. She questioned the legality of the scheme and expressed concern at the officer’s definition of the word ‘highway’. She confirmed that she was strenuously against the proposals and felt the finance for this scheme could be better used elsewhere in the city.

Mr K Bell, a resident of Beckfield Lane also indicated his opposition to the scheme. He felt that the proposals would affect the visual quality of the area and that the scheme was inappropriate and contravened government advice. He stated that a one day traffic study provided insufficient information on which to base the proposals.

Councillor Horton read a written statement from Councillor Simpson-Laing who had been unable to attend the meeting. She pointed out that residents had not supported the first section of the off road cycle facilities on the east side of Beckfield Lane and that this section was not used as intended. She referred to the number of side roads that bisected the extension of the route and pointed out that cyclist would not stop and give way at each one which presented dangers to both themselves, pedestrians and other vehicles.

Councillor Horton confirmed that he had received numerous representations all from residents opposed to the scheme and one in support from a resident of Almsford Road. He stated that he felt the scheme could not be financially justified and raised concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. He felt that the potential conflict with vehicles and the fact that there had only been one minor accident involving a cyclist in the area over a 3 year period did not justify the costs associated with this scheme. 

Officers responded to the comments made by local residents and members.

The Executive Member referred to the increase in numbers cycling in the city, which was 7% over last years figure and was greater on off road cycle paths. He stated that this confirmed his view that off road cycle paths were likely to have the greatest influence over modal choice. He confirmed that one of the main factors in determining the proposal was that at least 25% of cyclists already used footpaths in the area to avoid what they judged to be a dangerous road. In order to address the concerns of residents he confirmed that he proposed some additions to options proposed in the report by officers.

Consideration was then given to the following options:

Option One – authorise construction of the proposal shown in Annex B of the report;

Option Two – approve an amended scheme (Annex E), plus any other changes to the proposal that the Executive Member considers necessary, for construction;

Option Three – approve a scheme layout from Annex B or E but defer construction work on the scheme at this time, and keep the scheme in reserve for consideration at a later date for potential inclusion in future transport capital programmes;

Option Four – abandon the scheme completely.

RESOLVED:   ­That the Executive Member approves:

(i)                 The amended scheme as shown in Annex E, of the report, for construction;

(ii)               The layout, and subsequent engineering works, being refined to permit the easy installation of a Toucan crossing near the Runswick Avenue shops on Beckfield Lane at a later date, should this prove necessary;

(iii)             Officers continuing to consider how safety improvements can be made for pedestrian and cyclists crossing Wetherby Road at its junction with Beckfield Lane and

(iv)              Officers being asked to ensure that any “shared use” areas of path being clearly delineated in line with emerging standards specification. ^1.

REASON:                                          To extend the existing cycle facilities in order to provide a complete cycle route on Beckfield Lane whilst trying to address resident’s comments and concerns about the original proposals, where possible.

­ Note: This decision was amended at the Executive (Calling In) meeting held on 10 November 2009 - see under mentioned link to the minutes of that meeting for further details.

http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=601&MId=4350&Ver=4