MINUTES OF THE ROADS COMMITTEE MEETING – A AGENDAHELD IN THE FIRST FLOOR COMMITTEE ROOM AT THE TOWN HALL ON
WEDNESDAY, 5 AUGUST 2015 AT 10.00AM
PRESENT: / Constable S Crowcroft (SC)
Mr G Jennings (GJ)
Mr N Blake (NB)
Mr B Manning (BM)
Mr R Le Brocq (RLB)
The Very Rev R Key (Dean) (RK)
Mr P Wade (PW)
IN ATTENDANCE: / Mr P Pearce (Procureur du Bien Public) (PP)
Mr J Stievenard (Director of Technical & Environmental Services) (JS)
Mr S Alves (Manager of Technical & Environmental Services) (SA)
APOLOGIES / Mr C Barton (Procureur du Bien Public) (CB)
Mrs D East (Town Centre Manager) (DE)
OPEN MEETING / Having been previously circulated, the ‘A’ Agenda Minutes of the meeting held on 10 June 2015 were agreed.
MATTERS ARISING
192/15 - WALKING/CYCLING ROUTE - NO 32 BELMONT ROAD / Previous minute 165/15 refers
GJ expressed concern about the major ramifications of cyclists being unable to make legal turns at some junctions. SC said the matter would be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the Cycling Strategy Working Group which would meet before the next Roads Committee Meeting.
AGENDA ITEMS
193/15 - TOWN CENTRE MANAGER’S REPORT / The Town Centre Manager has been on leave since the Fete de St Helier Street Party so no report was presented this month.
194/15 - PARKING – VALLÉE DES VAUX / Previous minute 161/15 refers
The Committee were asked to formalise the decision made at the June Committee Meeting to designate the whole length of the valley ‘prohibition of waiting’ with 4 small parking areas which would have a 3 hour disc limit.
Following a site visit earlier in the morning the Committee were given sight of the results of the consultation exercise carried out to canvas opinion on the proposals. A total of 50 responses had been received but some people had made more than one response. As many comments had been made in some instances it was difficult to determine support or otherwise for the scheme but 7 voted for the scheme, 17 against and 8 undecided. JS pointed out that this is not “new” parking and that the “prohibition of waiting” would not necessarily mean yellow lines down the valley as alternative signage could be used. The Committee acknowledged that not everybody would be happy with whatever decision was made and if it was not right first time the proposals could be tweaked. The Committee were trying to establish a balance, if parking was removed completely there would also be no parking available to residents.
GJ suggested that the 4 pockets of parking could be sited on the grass verges by reducing the road width. RLB felt that having cars parked on the road did generally reduce the speed of traffic. The Committee felt that GJ’s suggestion could be considered in the future although they recognised there were major cost implications and it was not known whether consultation with Planning was required and whether they would support it. JS also felt that a further consultation exercise with residents and users of the area should be carried out as this would be a completely different proposal.
Area 2 – RK suggested moving the area from outside the properties and putting it adjacent to the trees further north. GJ suggested the parking be moved to the other side of the road. JS suggested that as this was a major change to the proposals a further consultation exercise should be carried out but the Committee did not think this was necessary. JS also said that this proposal could mean the loss of the top 4 spaces.
Area 3 - NB thought that the cars should not be parked in this location in order to improve traffic flow and BM suggested it be reduced to 2 cars. GJ suggested installing cycle racks either side of the steps instead of bollards.
Members of the public made the following comments:
·  Thanked the Committee and the Honorary Police for their work to date to try to resolve the problem;
·  Some of the comments received are from lodgers in the properties;
·  People are parking cars in the valley and cycling in to town;
·  Commercial vehicles are parked up at the weekend which is the main period when visitors come to use the area;
·  Can commercial vehicles be banned? – advised that transit van size vehicles would still be able to park without a change to the Law;
·  Some proposed parking areas are intrusive to the adjacent properties;
·  Have any non-residents responded to the consultation? – advised that 2 or 3 responses from non-residents had been received;
·  As the bays are only policed between 8.00am – 5.00pm their effect is negligible and would be no deterrent for those who park there over the weekend, as opposed to a yellow line which could be policed for longer periods – advised that this is the Law;
·  People have been observed waiting around on a Saturday evening looking for a space so they can park over the weekend.
The Committee thanked the members of the public for their contributions.
The Committee agreed to their original proposal for creation of 4 parking bays (subject to the spaces in Area 2 being moved to the other side of the road), with a 3 hour disc limit and minimal signage – all subject to consultation with TTS, GJ dissented.
The Committee acknowledged that not everybody would be happy with whatever decision was made and if it was not right first time, the proposals could be tweaked. The Committee were trying to establish a balance, if parking was removed completely there would also be no parking available to residents.
SC thanked the Honorary Police for their recent actions to remove the vehicles that had been parked there for some time. Although the proposal of an off-street parking area was not an option at present this did provide a parking solution in other “valleys” and would be pursued in the longer term.
GJ mentioned that there was no signage for the “water gardens” and SC said they were looking neglected.
RK left the meeting
195/15 - PARKING DESIGNATION – WEST HILL / Previous minute 141/15 refers
The Committee were given sight of the results of the consultation exercise carried out to canvas opinion on the proposal to introduce a 2 hour disc zone on the small parking area adjacent to the business premises.
Two formal responses have been received in support of the proposal but both respondents suggested a 12 hour parking restriction, but would also support a 2 or 3 hour limit.
The Committee felt that the shorter the time period the easier it would be to police. The Committee agreed that a 3 hour time restriction should be imposed, BM and NB dissented in preference of a 2 hour limit.
196/15 - ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES, ST THOMAS’ RPZ – GREAT UNION ROAD / Previous minute 140/15 refers
The Committee were given sight of the results of the consultation exercise carried out to canvas opinion on the proposal to introduce 10 additional RPZ parking spaces in Great Union Road.
Three formal responses have been received in support of the proposal but have made additional comments of interest to the Committee:
·  Instead of creation of 1 parking space at the southern (Devonshire Place) end of the road, create a single space as a “drop-off” facility for local residents;
·  Replace one of the spaces outside Daghorn Motors with a motorcycle bay which would assist the adjacent motorcycle business and not create a visibility hazard if a high sided vehicle was parked there;
·  Concern that visitor spaces can only be used until 10.00pm.
The Committee were supportive of the proposal for the single space at the southern end of the road to be allocated as an unofficial “drop-off” facility and for the provision of a motor cycle bay, provided the business owner accepted that this was for general use and not specifically for his business. JS pointed out that creation of the additional spaces would reduce the number of passing places on the road.
The decision means that 8 new RPZ spaces and one additional motor cycle parking bay would be introduced.
Deputy Hilton thanked the Committee for moving the proposals forward as a matter of priority but asked that the situation regarding visitor spaces be considered in the future and she felt there was an opportunity to create further spaces in Aquila Road and agreed to meet with JS to look at her proposals.
197/15 - REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF A PLAQUE – 101 HALKETT PLACE / The Committee were asked to consider a request for the installation of a plaque in the granite footpath outside 101 Halkett Place to honour the birth of Florence Rowe, who became wife to Jesse Boot founder of Boots Chemist.
The source of the request is unknown but has the support of Jersey Heritage. The proposed slate plaque is similar to that used at a number of locations throughout the town. Permission of the owner of 101 Halkett Place to affix the plaque to the building has not been forthcoming, hence the request to place the plaque in the footpath outside the property.
Concern was expressed that the quality of the carving would deteriorate over time, the inscription would become unreadable and also that the slate maybe be slippery under foot.
The Committee agreed to the installation but suggested the engraving be carved in to a piece of Jersey granite flagstone.
198/15 - REQUEST FOR A BUILDING ENCROACHMENT – SEATON PLACE / The Committee were asked to consider a request for a building encroachment at No 29 Seaton Place where the building is to be redeveloped following Planning approval in 2012.
The design incorporates a tower structure whose roof design creates an overhang in one small area of 700mm at a height above the public highway of 16.80m. No other part of the structure will encroach beyond the site boundary. The encroachment is minor, is at a height well above any nuisance level and is deemed not to interfere with the operation of the public highway.
The Committee approved the request and T & E Services will issue a Licence under the Highways (Jersey) Law 1956.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
199/15 - 20 SAND STREET, ST HELIER, JE2 3QF / P/2015/1055
20 Sand Street, St Helier, JE2 3QF
RETROSPECTIVE: Change of use of rear of ground floor from Class A retail and Class B café.
The Roads Committee has examined plans for the above submission and gives approval provided:
·  That the refuse store and collection arrangements are agreed in detail with the Parish Refuse Manager.
200/15 - THE SALVATION ARMY HALL, MINDEN STREET, ST HELIER, JE2 4WR / P/2015/1056
The Salvation Army Hall, Minden Street, St Helier, JE2 4WR
Change of use from storage to café, bakery and offices.
The Roads Committee has examined plans for the above submission and gives approval provided:
·  That the refuse store and collection arrangements are agreed in detail with the Parish Refuse Manager.
·  That a refuse separation and recycling strategy is agreed in conjunction with the Parish.
·  That the requirements of the Highway Encroachments (Jersey) Regulations 1957 are strictly complied with as it is noted that the proposed slot drain to the entrance to the building encroaches on the public footpath. The slot drain must be located within the applicant’s site boundary and must not encroach onto the footpath, the slot drain is to be connected to the applicant’s drainage system; it must not be connected to the existing road drainage. As an alternative suggestion the applicant could consider a gentle slope between the door opening reveal sloping down to the foot path which would eliminate the need for a slot drain and associated drainage works.
201/15 - 27 ESPLANADE, ST HELIER, JE2 3QA / RP/2015/1052
27 Esplanade, St Helier, JE2 3QA
REVISED PLANS to P/2011/0647 (Refurbishment of 27 Esplanade. Re-modelling of 28 Esplanade. Demolition of buildings. Construct seven storey office building. Construction basement car park.) Alter floor area of basement, set south west elevation further back from Esplanade and refurbishment of historic façade of 27 & 28 Esplanade.
The comments raised in the Roads Committee consultation on 15.06.11 remain, however it has been updated to reflect the new alteration to the original application, as per the below:
The Roads Committee has examined plans for the above submission and comment as follows:-
·  The proposal for 28 off street car parking spaces in the basement meets the current policy of car reduction for commuters and encourages alternative modes of transport – this provision is therefore considered acceptable.
·  The proposal to install bicycle racks for up to 32 is supported as is the aim to achieve 5% cyclist mode share. However, as this site is immediately adjacent to the main east/west cycle track the Parish believe that the development could sustain a greater percentage mode share and the applicant is requested to consider increasing the facility for private secure bicycle parking.
·  It is noted that refuse storage will be on ground floor with bins being brought to street level on collection day. The storage of a large number of eurobins adjacent to Rue des Mielles requires careful design and should be developed with the Parish Refuse Department prior to the final design of the scheme being approved by the Planning Department. A detailed refuse strategy which seeks to maximise separation, recycling and re-use should be developed in conjunction with the Parish.
·  The vehicular entrance/exit to Rue des Mielles achieves an acceptable 28 metre vision line to oncoming traffic and achieves 9m and 18m pedestrian vision lines.
·  The development must incorporate adequate private off street facilities to ensure that service and delivery vans do not have to park on the public highway.
·  It should be noted that no part of the structure whether below or above ground will be permitted to encroach onto public land.
·  For a development of 9,000m2 the volume of foot traffic, both staff and visitor, in and out of the development will be considerable with a large percentage crossing Castle Street to access the town centre and return. It is requested that the applicant consider the funding of pedestrian improvements to the Castle Street/Rue des Mielles junction, to be developed in conjunction with the Parish and TTS.