ALDERNEY, BRANKSOME EAST AND WEST AREA COMMITTEE

WEDNESDAY 15 JULY 2009

SUNNYHILL COMMUNITY CHURCH HALL, SUNNYHILL ROAD, PARKSTONE, POOLE

The Meeting commenced at 7.00 p.m. and concluded at 8.45 p.m.

Present:

Councillor Eades (Chairman)

Councillors Mrs Lavender, Meachin, Montrose, Mrs Rampton and Trent

Members of the public in attendance: Approximately 30

ABEW11.09APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Miss Wilson.

ABEW12.09DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Eades declared a personal interest in M.ABEW15.09 as he had made representations on this item.

Councillor Mrs Lavender declared a personal interest in M.ABEW15.09 as an acquaintance lived at No. 76 Cromer Road.

ABEW13.09MINUTES

Mr Woolrych referred to ABEW07.09 – Transportation Issues – Traffic Panel, referred to the final paragraph of the item. He stated that in the Minute the Headteacher of St Aldhelm’s School had attended the Meeting but this was not the case and he asked who had attended from the School.

The Meeting was advised that it was in fact a Governor of St Aldhelm’s School who had attended the Meeting and it was suggested that this correction be made to the Minutes. It was also pointed out that St Aldhelm’s had been spelt incorrectly in that Item.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of The Area Committee held on 20 May 2009, be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman with the deletion of “the Headteacher of St Adlheim’s” and the substitution of “a Governor of St Aldhelm’s” at Minute ABEW07.09.

ABEW14.09 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

(a)Improvements to the Footpath between Evering Avenue and Guernsey Road, behind Manorside Combined School

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, submitted a report on behalf of the Head of Transportation Services, requesting views on a proposal to improve the public footpath between Guernsey Road and Evering Avenue. The Members of both this Committee and the Transportation Advisory Group had in the past referred to the poor condition of the path between Evering Avenue and Guernsey Road. The existing path was only partially hard-surfaced, with the remaining section consisting of a sand/gravel surface. It was the intention to ensure the provision of a tarmaced surface for the entire length of the footpath.

A major part of School Travel Plans was to encourage parents to bring their children to school by sustainable modes of travel, other than the car. Footpaths in the vicinity of schools were vitally important to encourage people to walk from locations further away from the schools, however, the condition of these paths, particularly in wet weather, had been a cause for concern.

Steve Dean, also stated that it was planned to provide nine lighting columns as the footpath was currently unlit. The provision of a fully surfaced footpath was estimated to cost £22,500 and the additional cost of providing nine lighting columns would be £16,500. Currently there was insufficient funding in the 2009/10 Capital Programme for implementing a lighting Scheme as well as the footpath improvements. If the Committee decided that the lighting improvements should be made then this would need to be completed as soon as an additional budget was identified. The First Phase would then comprise footpath improvement and installation of ducting to service the lighting columns. Installation of the lighting columns would then comprise Phase 2 of the improvement and be completed early in the 2010/11 Financial Year.

The Meeting was advised of the Consultation which had taken place with Manorside School, Winchelsea School, Residents of 55–81 Alderney Avenue, 73-75 Evering Avenue, 52-54 Guernsey Road, and Ward Councillors. A list of all the comments received was included as an Appendix to the Report considered by the Area Committee. No comments opposing the Proposals had been received but a late response from a resident had raised concerns that more motorcycles would use the footpath.

Additionally, some concerns had been expressed in the past about the possibility of increased vandalism and security issues, if the footpath was improved and lighting provided. The provision of lighting would increase the perceived security for users at night and thereby, would be expected to increase usage during the hours of darkness. Conversely, it had been suggested that the increased usage at night would have security implications for properties abutting the footway. The Committee was asked to consider whether it wished to proceed with the improvements to the footpath between Evering Avenue and Guernsey Road.

The following comments were raised by members of the public at the Meeting:-

  • Mr Marsh, of 67 Alderney Avenue, raised concerns that he would have a lamppost outside his property. He was also concerned that the posts would affect the footings of his property. He stated that most residents did not want the lighting on the path.

He also stated that the path was flooded on occasions and that he had been told that there was a spring and drainage pipes along the path, which took the water away.

  • Mr Gosling requested that consideration be given to providing a ramp for use by people in wheelchairs and mobility scooters rather than the existing steps.

Councillor Meachin stated that he had been waiting for approximately 10 years for this Scheme to come forward and welcomed the tarmacing of the path.

Councillor Trent also welcomed the improvements to the path but with regard to the lighting he was not convinced that this was necessary. He saw no reason why the ducting could not be put in but this could be on the south side of the path. He also stated that measures could be put in at a future date if motorcycles became a problem on the path. He felt that the lighting part of the Scheme should not be proceeded with at the present time, and that the possibility of a ramp to replace the steps should be looked at.

Councillor Montrose asked if low-level lighting could be explored?

Steve Dean, stated that it was important to know about drainage problems in this area and that this would be passed on. With regard to disabled access, again he would ask for this to be considered and that Ward Councillors would be advised if it could not be implemented. He also stated that it could be possible to carry out the ducting work and that the lighting could be looked at a later date. Furthermore consideration could be given to placing the lighting on the north side of the path.

RESOLVED that:

(i)Approval be given to the Proposal to improve the surface of the path between Guernsey Road and Evering Avenue and that a Traffic Regulation Order to temporarily close the footpath to undertake the work be advertised.

(ii)Approval be given to the provision of lighting to the footpath but the installation be delayed until a budget can be identified from within the Transportation Services Programme and that:

(a) Consideration be given to placing the lighting duct on the north side of the footpath

(b) Provision of the lighting be not proceeded with at this stage and that further consideration is given to this issue in the future and

(c) That consideration also be given to the provision of a ramp for people with disabilities.

ABEW15.09OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, reported that that the following Orders for waiting restrictions had recently been advertised:

(a)Cromer Road/Yarmouth Road – double yellow lines.

(b)Benbow Crescent – parking controls.

(c)Churchill Road – residents parking.

(d)Scott Road/Wallisdown Road junction.

(e)Boldre Close/Rossmore Road junction.

Representations had been received in response to items (a) – (c) above but there had been no objections to items (d) and (e) so these Orders could be made as advertised. The Committee then considered the following:-

(a)Cromer Road/Yarmouth Road

The Meeting was advised that the proposed yellow lines would keep the junction clear and had been extended to confine parking to the southern side of this section of Cromer Road between Yarmouth Road and Sherringham Road. Four letters of objection had been received from residents of Sherringham Road, one from a resident of Yarmouth Road and Councillor Eades had written to support the objections. The Objectors felt that the proposals would make it more difficult for residents to park in the area and this merely helped through traffic to use the road. Two of the objections suggested that the proposed yellow lines could be confined purely to the Yarmouth Road junction. One of the Objectors had suggested that a 20 mph limit would be more appropriate and another had suggested that yellow lines should be imposed to keep parking to one side of Cromer Road on the crest of the hill near Wroxham Road.

The Proposal was initiated when the Traffic Panel considered a request for yellow lines to keep parking away from the junction of Cromer Road with Yarmouth Road. The Panel had noted that there had recently been an injury accident at the junction and restricted visibility appeared to have been a factor. It was suggested that this element of the Proposal should be confirmed. With regard to the waiting restrictions along the northern side of Cromer Road, he felt that there was less need for restrictions here, and in view of the level of objection, it was suggested that this element of the Proposals could be dropped to retain as much parking space as possible for residents.

Councillor Mrs Lavender stated that if Cromer Road had more waiting restrictions then this would merely move parked vehicles into Sherringham Road.

Mr McNally stated that he appreciated the problem at the junction of Cromer Road and Yarmouth Road but was concerned that if further restrictions were provided that this would mean other roads would have parked vehicles which would not really solve the problem.

RESOLVED that the Traffic Regulation Order at the Cromer Road/Yarmouth Road junction be made as advertised but that the Proposal to extend the restrictions on the northern side between Yarmouth Road and Sherringham Road not proceed.

(b)Benbow Crescent

The Meeting was advised that the proposed restrictions would prevent parking on the two bends and extend the existing resident parking bays further along Benbow Crescent. Three residents of Benbow Crescent had written to support the Proposal. Details of the representations which had been made were set out in the Report by The Head of Transportation Services.

Mr Martindale advised the Meeting that he was attending on behalf of Mrs McIntyre, a local resident, and himself who also lived in Benbow Crescent. He stated that currently parking extended past No. 32 and that his property was only one of five in the road that did not have off-road parking. The Proposals he felt, would merely push cars further down Benbow Crescent to the east causing problems at that point. If the Proposal went ahead this would put residents at risk. He felt that it was the function of the Committee to look after residents and their safety and that if there was an accident this would be the responsibility of Councillors who had made the decision to extend the parking restrictions. The parking problems in this area were caused by workers from the Industrial Estate in Bournemouth but residents were affected by their actions.

Mr Stephenson endorsed the proposed yellow lines but asked the Committee to only provide them on one side. He felt that alternative parking should be provided for the workers on the Industrial Estate. Parking would merely be pushed further down the road and that this situation would only get worse. Parking should be provided in Bournemouth for the Industrial Estate workers and that this could be done on the wide grassed area in Wallisdown Road with screening being provided. This Scheme was not a long term solution to the parking problems.

Mr Turner agreed that the Proposals would push the problem further down the road but he felt that on balance the Scheme should be agreed and that if further problems occurred then these would have to come back to the Area Committee. He could not understand why private companies could not be asked to pay for parking provision on the Estate.

Mr Barfield agreed that the yellow lines should be implemented as suggested and drew attention to the problems the workers vehicles were causing to residents in Benbow Crescent but he appreciated that they had nowhere else to park. However, he also felt that the Proposals would merely push parking further down the road.

Councillor Trent stated that the request for waiting restrictions on the corner had originally been brought forward by residents. The restrictions were being implemented for safety reasons and there was no major objection to this. With regard to the extension of the Residents Parking Scheme, this was originally agreed to be implemented on the north side up to No. 40 but the advertisement referred to both sides to see what the reaction would be. He felt that wherever the restrictions finished it would move parking down the road but surely if it got too distant from the place of work then surely parking would not take place. There was a need to persuade Bournemouth Borough Council to provide more parking for the workers on the Industrial Estate.

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, stated that Bournemouth Borough Council had been asked if land could be used for parking but he confirmed that Councils did not provide parking areas in these circumstances. It was up to the Committee to either agree to the Order as advertised, agree less restrictions or not proceed with the Scheme at all. He felt that the yellow lines on the two bends should be provided as this was for safety reasons.

RESOLVED that the Orders in Benbow Crescent be made as advertised.

(c)Churchill Road

Steve Dean, reported that the proposed restrictions would impose a 60 minute limit parking (8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday) in the currently unrestricted length of Churchill Road between numbers 46 and 52 within an exemption for resident permit holders. Three residents from the effected section of the road had written to support the Proposal.

Mr Penn-Warden, a resident of Churchill Road, welcomed the Scheme but had concerns about the amount of parking in the road due to businesses in the area and the recent additional residential parking which was due to new developments in the area. It was very difficult to park in the road and he felt that the one-hour restrictions would not be adhered to or enforced and he felt that the proposed area of restricted area should just be for residents only.

Councillor Mrs Lavender stated that the request for waiting restrictions had come from a resident who had difficulty parking when returning to their home during the day. She agreed that the area should be set aside for residents only to park.

Steve Dean, stated that the Order advertised related to a one-hour limit and there would be a need to re-advertise this if the Committee decided to implement Residents Only parking. Other roads in the area, such as Gladstone Road, had one hour restrictions and that enforcement in this road would be carried out more than some areas. There would be a need to justify the implementation of a Residents Only parking Scheme in this road. If it was the wish of the Committee to implement a Residents Only Parking Scheme then a further Report would be needed explaining the implications of this course of action.

A Proposal was submitted and duly seconded agreeing to the order as advertised and that a further Report be submitted on extending this restriction to become a Residents Parking Scheme. On being put to the vote this proposal was CARRIED.

RESOLVED that the Orders in Churchill Road be made as advertised and that a further Report be considered by the Area Committee on extending this restriction to become a Residents Parking Scheme if this can be justified.

(d)Scott Road/Wallisdown Road and Boldre Close/Rossmore Road Junctions

The Committee was advised that there had been no objections to the Orders.

RESOLVED that the above Orders be made as advertised.

ABEW16.09FOOTWAY PARKING – WALLISDOWN ROAD

Steve Dean, Transportation Services, reported that at the last Meeting of the Area Committee a request was made for consideration of waiting restrictions to discourage footway parking along the stretch of Wallisdown Road between Bryant Road and Scott Road. The Council was keen to see an end to parking on footways as this made it difficult for people to use the footways, particularly with wheelchairs or pushchairs, and damaged the kerbs and the structure of the footway. At present, only the Police had the authority to prosecute offenders, and they were aware of the concerns. The Council was pressing the Government to give local Councils the power to fine drivers who parked on footways, but until these powers were given Officers had to rely on the Police to enforce this.