BOROUGH OF POOLE
CANFORD CLIFFS AND PENN HILL AREA COMMITTEE
15 SEPTEMBER 2010
The Meeting commenced at 7pm and concluded at 9:15pm
Present:
Councillor Mrs Haines (Chairman)
Councillors Ms Atkinson, Mrs Deas, Mrs Dion, Parker and Sorton
CCPH18.10 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
No apologies for absence were submitted.
CCPH19.10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations of interest were declared.
CCPH20.10 MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meetings held on 14 July 2010 and 19 July 2010, having been previously circulated, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
CCPH21.10 MATTERS ARISING
Mr Sprackling referred to M.CCPH17.10 (page 8) and stated that he had previously brought attention to the unauthorised use of razor wire” adjoining Footpath 82. He enquired whether this had been removed?
Steve Cattle, Legal and Democratic Services, responded by stating that the matter had been drawn to the attention of the Rights of Way Officer and he undertook to see if this matter had been resolved.
Mr Sprackling also drew attention to M.CCPH12.10 and stated that the Branksome Park and Canford Cliffs Residents Association had been asked if it would fund the excavation work necessary for the provision of trees in Haven Road. This matter had been considered at a recent meeting of the Association and it had been unanimously decided that the Association would not wish to make contributions.
The Chairman asked if an update could be given on the latest position with regard to the Footpath 82 Modification Order process.
Steve Cattle responded by stating that, following the Meeting of the Canford Cliffs and Penn Hill Area Committee on 19 July 2010, a public notice of the making of the Modification Order had been made and that objections could be submitted up to 21st October 2010.
CCPH22.10 PENN HILL AVENUE,WOODSIDE ROAD AND KINSBRIDGE ROAD TRAFFIC
Steve Dean, on behalf of the Head of Transportation Services, presented an information report, updating the Committee on recent changes in the Penn Hill Avenue area.
He drew attention to the four shared priorities for the delivery of Transport Strategy around which the Local Transport Plan was structured. The four shared priorities were: congestion, accessibility, road safety and air quality. The Strategy for delivery under the heading of congestion included a number of strands, with one of the main features being the improvement of traffic movement along several Prime Transport Corridors. The first of these to be considered was the main route between Poole and Bournemouth Town Centres. The corridor concept looked at improvements, not only on the main A35 but also on the parallel alternative routes, including Station Road – Penn Hill Avenue – Leicester Road – Lindsay Road.
This was on the basis that improvements to parallel routes would enable better traffic flow along the corridor as a whole. Improvements had already been implemented at the Lindsay Road/Leicester Road junction; the Penn Hill junction and Station Road/Commercial Road junction. These improvements had been complimented by the recent improvement at the Ashley Cross junction and further improvements were planned in due course at Bournemouth Road/Richmond Road/St Osmunds Road, along Ashley Road and also along Poole Road.
There had also been accessibility improvements in the area too and a new zebra crossing had been installed in Penn Hill Avenue and pedestrian facilities had been improved at the Penn Hill junction as part of the new traffic signals. The cycle lanes in Penn Hill Avenue helped cyclists to make more use of this route. Local traffic arrangements around North Lodge Road and Archway Road had also been of benefit to local people.
He also referred to the representations which had been made at a recent Area Committee relating to the Kingsbridge Road Roundabout, which was installed in 2001 to address concerns about the regular damage sustained to boundary walls when vehicles lost control on the bend. The roundabout introduced an element of speed reduction at this sharp bend, and the signage drew drivers’ attention to the junction. The road layout was very clear for westbound drivers, with a building and boundary wall directly in their line of sight, so it would be hard to justify introducing further signs. The maintenance requirements for this mini roundabout were no greater than other locations. While the railings were hit a few months ago, the last time was some 18 months prior to that – a situation which compares very favourably to that which existed before this mini roundabout was installed.
There were also adequate signs and road markings to show this operated as a roundabout. With the predominant flow being on two legs, it was inevitable that the third leg (Highmoor Road) had to be negotiated with caution, but again, this was not unusual.
He highlighted the fact that there were currently 45 sites in the Borough awaiting funding for improvement works and as this particular location did not meet this criterion, it would therefore not be appropriate to consider any accident reduction measures.
Finally, he drew attention to other issues which had been raised at the last meeting, such as:
· The creation of a one-way system along Penn Hill Avenue to deter through traffic would involve implications across a wide area and would run counter to the strategy of improving junctions along the route that had been implemented so far. One-Way restrictions would adversely impact local traffic movements and generally encourage higher vehicle speed.
· The unsuitability of this route for large lorries had been raised as an issue before. Traffic was not signed via this route and surveys indicated that the proportion using the route was actually very small (0.6%). A lorry ban would be expensive to impose and it would be virtually unenforceable by the Police.
· Concerns were also raised that residents could not see when emerging from driveways on the southern side of Penn Hill Avenue. This was previously a problem at accesses on both sides of the road and sight lines could only be cleared by introducing further parking restrictions on the southern side of the road. There were strong objections to the loss of parking spaces when the restrictions were advertised on the northern side of Penn Hill Avenue and it would be difficult to justify imposing further restrictions on the southern side.
Members made the following comments:
· A recent news item had stated that there would be less investment in fixed speed cameras and more would be done to provide mobile cameras and she felt that residents would like to see this provided in Penn Hill Avenue.
Steve Dean responded by stating that the Transportation Advisory Group would be discussing the budget situation relating to the Dorset Roadsafe Partnership and he undertook to feed these comments back to the Partnership.
· Councillor Parker stated that there was an issue with regard to the beacons at the pedestrian crossing and stated that this was currently being looked at.
· The Chairman stated that speeding had been made a priority by the Safer Neighbourhood Team and that as an initiative, it would be handing out 30mph stickers to go on residents’ rubbish bins to highlight the speed limit along the road and that this would be clearly visible when the rubbish bins were put out for collection. She drew attention to the next meeting of the Safer Neighbourhoods Team, which was on 22 October 2010 at St Luke’s Church Hall.
Residents made the following points:
· Cyclists were at risk at the Kingsbridge Road/Highmoor Road junction and was concerned that Officers would not be doing anything until someone was hurt. He felt that more markings were needed at this location.
· A suggestion was made that the markings on the cycle lane on Lindsay Road could be made into broken lines as traffic turning into Tesco was held up and if vehicles could go over the broken line, this would assist congestion at this point.
· A resident could not understand why the central barrier by Penn Hill shops had been removed as cars now did U-turns in the road and parked the wrong way round. He asked who had decided this course of action?
Steve Dean responded by stating that he would send the reasons why the barrier was taken away direct to Mr Riley.
· A resident felt that the traffic was now faster along this road and there was no reason why the barrier should have been removed.
· A resident stated that at the last meeting, concerns were expressed with regard to the Springfield Road and Church Road junction, which was continually blocked due to the nearby traffic signals and felt that a “yellow box” should be put at this point to allow better traffic flow.
Steve Dean responded by stating that this scheme was being monitored and it was hoped that the result would be that traffic was not blocked at this location. A yellow box marking would be considered if the monitoring indicated that this was still needed.
· Highmoor Road was still an issue for drivers turning into the road and it was felt that a solid line could be put down to stop traffic. Drivers turning into Highmoor Road had the right of way but this was being ignored by other drivers on the roundabout.
Steve Dean responded by stating that the existing lines were legal and that others as had been suggested would not help the situation, as they would not have any legal force. He drew attention to the information contained in the Report about making roads safer and in view of recent budget cuts of 30%, it was important to spend money to make roads with an accident record safer. In response to a question about shrubs obscuring visibility at the roundabout, he stated that the only action the Council could take would be if a hedge etc overhung the highway but he would make sure that this was regularly monitored.
· Resident stated that Penn Hill Avenue was no longer a small minor road and was now and important major route and asked steps to be taken to make it safer.
· A resident stated that these issues were raised with Councillors around two years ago and asked when they would become a priority?
Councillor Mrs Haines responded by stating that it was essential for residents to make the Safer Neighbourhoods team aware of the issue so that they could become a priority. The more votes which were submitted on an issue mean that something would be done. It is essential for people to get in touch with the Safer Neighbourhoods team.
Councillor Mrs Dion stated that all Councillors shared residents’ frustration about speeding and everyone wanted traffic calming but the Council could not curb traffic enough to be effective. This was an Anti Social Behaviour Issue by drivers concerned and the Council could only do its best to solve the problems but the local Safer Neighbourhood team should be made aware of the issues. She drew attention to traffic calming which had been provided in other locations and stated that this would affect residents, especially if they had to navigate road humps on a continual basis. The Council tried to do its best but it could not change the behaviour of drivers. She felt that Speed Indicator Devices were an effective solution.
Councillor Mrs Deas drew attention to a recent fatal accident which had occurred in Sandbanks where two people had been killed which had been caused by speeding. The speeding of vehicles on the peninsula was causing residents chaos and that residents had attended this meeting to see what could be done.
Councillor Sorton advised the meeting that the Sandbanks Association had asked him to place an item on the Agenda of Transportation Advisory Group for this matter to be considered.
Steve Dean responded by stating that any fatal accident was investigated by the Police and that the Coroner would, presumably, also be involved. He stated Traffic Calming Schemes were developed to address a pattern of accidents rather than in response to individual incidents, and that it would not be appropriate to consider a report on this incident until all the facts have been made public.
Councillor Mrs Deas asked if Officers could meet with residents to hear what their concerns were on speeding on the Sandbanks Peninsula.
Steve Dean responded by stating that the Transportation Advisory Group would be discussing this issue in due course.
RESOLVED that the information Report be noted.
CCPH23.10 PRESENTATIONS
Nigel Jacobs, The Planning Policy and Implementation Manager in Planning and Regeneration Services gave a short presentation on the Core Strategy and what it meant for Penn Hill and Canford Cliffs. The Core Strategy adopted in 2004 replaced the Poole Local Plan. He explained the context in that the Plan represented the spatial expression of the Sustainable Community Strategy and that the Core Strategy identified how Poole would change and evolve over the coming years.
It set out the spatial vision for Poole by
1 Transforming the Town Centre
2 Providing a network of lively Local Centres such as Ashley Cross
3 Restructured the economy
4 Created local identity and strong community life
5 Met environmental changes.
He emphasised that the Core Strategy was not a Land Use Plan but would manage the needs of the Borough and direct development and investment decisions. The Strategy focused on growth in the central area, local centres and on the main transport corridors (75% of housing were in these areas) and meant that the remaining housing in the rest of the Borough would be mainly from windfall sites.