Agenda item

This report seeks approval of a scheme to extend an existing 20mph zone on Gale Lane to include a section of Thanet Road past the Lidl supermarket to just beyond St James Place.

Resolved: That the proposed scheme, shown in Annex C of the report, be approved for implementation with the following amendment:

·        The bus lay-by will not be in-filled,  but a slight change will be made to the positioning of the speed cushions plus some hatch road markings added (as shown on drawing TP/150019/THRD/GA/01C)

·        Visibility from side accesses will be reviewed prior to implementation. 

·        Post-implementation monitoring will take place to assess the effectiveness of the scheme.

Reason:     To address a road safety concern identified on Thanet  Road. The proposal to fill-in the lay-by was to stop it being available for drivers to bypass the adjacent speed cushions. However, having reviewed the design, it was felt that the addition of some hatch road markings, coupled with a slight adjustment of the cushions positions, would make this unlikely to become a problem.

The Executive Member considered a report which sought approval of a scheme to extend an existing 20mph zone on Gale Lane to include a section of Thanet Road past the Lidl supermarket to just beyond St James Place.

He took into account written representations which had been received from Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward Councillors, Councillor Andrew Waller and local resident Mr Steve Galloway.

Dringhouses and Woodthorpe Ward Councillors expressed general support for the revised scheme stating that they were pleased to see that proposals to fill in the south bound bus lay-by had been removed as this would have reduced visibility for cyclists crossing from Kingsway West and would have caused tailbacks across the roundabout if traffic had to wait behind a bus. They expressed the view that filling in the northbound lay-by at the present time would be premature as buses stopping on the carriageway would also reduce visibility for those using the crossing and if buses were waiting at both bus stops, traffic would be halted in both directions. They confirmed that their preference would be to retain both lay-bys and for the situation to be monitored.

Councillor Waller’s submission stated that he was glad that officers had recognised the problems that cyclists would face coming from Kingsway West if the southbound layby was removed and noted that issues relating to traffic exiting Acorn Ruby Club would occur if the northbound lay-by was removed. He stated that there were already issues with cable boxes obscuring cars coming from the Chaloners Road junction on Thanet Road which would be complicated further by buses stopping on the highway.

Mr Galloway’s submission presented the view that the proposed changes represented an “over engineered” solution to what he felt was a poorly defined problem and questioned whether traffic speed was in fact a principle cause of reported accidents as current traffic speed figures were not included in report, noting that three junctions, roundabouts and pedestrian crossings along Thanet Road, along with congestion, tended to reduce speeds. He expressed concerns that the proposals had only been advertised by lamppost notices and had not been accessible on the council’s website, nor circulated to local residents’ associations. He reiterated points already made with regard to the infilling of the bus laybys and suggested that a solution to accidents caused by pedestrians randomly crossing road would be to provide guard rails with intention of directing pedestrians to safest crossing point and a lower speed limit of 20mph may be appropriate where there was a particular accident risk such as by the Lidl store.

Mrs Sue Galloway addressed the Executive Member, under the public participation scheme,  on behalf of the Foxwood Residents’ Association in relation to the proposals. She urged the Executive Member not to agree to filling in the layby, advised that she would prefer no speed bumps but noting that a 20mph limit would be acceptable. She asked that barriers be considered first, then a 20mph speed limit as well as looking at sight lines. She expressed dismay that the advertisement notices had only been attached to lampposts as drivers would not have stopped to read these, and that residents associations had not been consulted on the proposals.

The Executive Member considered three options as detailed in the report:

·        Option 1, to approve the proposed scheme as shown in Annex C of the report for implementation

·        Option 2, as option 1, but with revisions as the Executive Member deems appropriate

·        Option 3, to do nothing, and reallocate the funding to another local safety scheme.

In response to the comments submitted regarding the need to fill in the layby, officers noted that there was only a fairly remote chance of vehicle drivers using the layby to bypass the speed cushions, and recommended that the speed cushions be aligned slightly and the layby left open and speed monitoring be undertaken. Officers circulated an amended plan (TP/150019/THRD/GA/01C) showing the option without layby filling.

Officers responded to the issues and suggestions raised in the written representations and by the public speaker. They confirmed that consultation had involved a large number of bodies but acknowledged that residents associations had not been included and gave assurances that they would be consulted in future. The Executive Member requested that sight lines be looked at before implementation of the scheme.

Resolved: That the proposed scheme, shown in Annex C of the report, be approved for implementation with the following amendment:

·        The bus lay-by will not be in-filled,  but a slight change will be made to the positioning of the speed cushions plus some hatch road markings added (as shown on drawing TP/150019/THRD/GA/01C)

·        Visibility from side accesses will be reviewed prior to implementation. 

·        Post-implementation monitoring will take place to assess the effectiveness of the scheme.

Reason:     To address a road safety concern identified on Thanet  Road.