MIDDLESBROUGH COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE REPORT
SINGLE MEMBER EXECUTIVE DECISION
ACKLAM HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME:
CHURCH LANE AND ST. MARY’S WALK
Deputy Mayor and Executive Member for Regeneration – Councillor
Charles Rooney
Executive Director for Economic Development and Communities –
Kevin Parkes
9th September 2015
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.
This Report analyses the results of the public consultation exercise carried out in
February and March 2015 to establish the level of support for a number of potential
highway improvements designed to mitigate the impact of the redevelopment of the
Acklam Hall site on the surrounding road network, in particular Church Lane and St.
Mary’s Walk, together with the results of a range of traffic surveys undertaken on
both of those roads during 2014, and requests Executive Member approval for the
proposed course of action arising from that analysis.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
2.
It is recommended that:
a) the existing situation on Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk in terms of traffic
volumes, speeds, delays and recorded injury accidents be noted;
b) no amendments to the existing highway layout on either road be introduced until
such time as the exact form and associated traffic impact of those elements of
the redevelopment scheme that will be accessed via Church Lane and St.
Mary’s Walk have been established;
c) a further report be prepared once the exact form and associated traffic impact of
those elements of the redevelopment scheme that will be accessed via Church
Lane and St. Mary’s Walk have been established, or by 31 March 2017 if the
situation is still unresolved, setting out the highway improvements required to
mitigate the predicted impact on the surrounding road network; and
1
d) traffic movements on Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk be monitored during the
intervening period, together with the recorded injury accident record on both
roads.
IF THIS IS A KEY DECISION WHICH KEY DECISION TEST APPLIES?
3.
It is over the financial threshold (£150,000)
It has a significant impact on 2 or more wards
Non Key

DECISION IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE
4.
For the purposes of the scrutiny call in procedure this report is
Non-urgent
Urgent report

If urgent please give full reasons.
BACKGROUND AND EXTERNAL CONSULTATION
Background
5.
The public consultation and decision making process adopted in order to determine
the highway improvements required in the Acklam area to mitigate the traffic impact
associated with the redevelopment of Acklam Hall was approved on 2 February
2015 (Item no. 14/8 refers).
6.
An extensive public consultation exercise was carried out during February and
March 2015. The ‘headline’ results of this consultation exercise were the subject of
a further Single Executive Member Report, which was approved on 18 March 2015
(Item no. 14/10 refers).
7.
Whilst there was widespread support for the local widening of Hall Drive at its
junction with Acklam Road, none of the potential highway improvement options
affecting Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk received a positive ‘net approval rating’,
with the majority of respondents voting against in each case. However, as ‘do
nothing’ was not seen as an acceptable way forward, it was agreed that a further
report should be prepared, analysing the consultation responses and other relevant
data in more detail and recommending a way forward as far as Church Lane and St.
Mary’s Walk are concerned.
8.
A key factor in deciding the appropriate way forward is the form of those elements
of the redevelopment scheme that will be accessed directly via Church Lane and St.
Mary’s Walk, as the additional traffic generated by these elements will impact
directly on the operation of both roads. However, although the current proposal is
for the introduction of a ‘medical village’, the exact components of this development
have yet to confirmed and, accordingly, it is not possible at this stage to quantify the
likely impact on the surrounding road network.
2
Analysis of Consultation Responses
9.
Five potential options affecting Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk were put forward
during the public consultation exercise. These were:





Option 2 – Introduction of traffic calming on the full length of Church Lane and
St. Mary’s Walk;
Option 3 – Introduction of a point closure at the corner of Church Lane and St.
Mary’s Walk;
Option 4 – Introduction of a ‘left in, left out’ arrangement at the access to the
proposed medical village;
Option 5 – Introduction of ‘targeted’ traffic calming on the approaches to the
corner of Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk and in the vicinity of Green Lane
Primary Academy; and
Option 6 – Introduction of a mini-roundabout at the access to the proposed
medical village.
The Table attached at Appendix 1 to this Report illustrates the responses received
to each of the potential options from the occupiers of properties on Church Lane
and St. Mary’s Walk and the roads accessed directly via those two roads.
10.
As can be seen, the overall net approval rating for each option was negative,
ranging between -14% and -26%, which means that a substantial majority of the
respondents voted against in each case. However, these overall percentages mask
a considerable variation in the responses received from the occupiers of properties
on Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk and the occupiers of properties on the roads
accessed directly via Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk. For example, whilst the
majority of the occupiers of properties on Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk
supported the introduction of Option 3 (with a net approval rating of +36%), the
occupiers of properties on the roads accessed directly via Church Lane and St.
Mary’s Walk were strongly opposed to this option, which received a net approval
rating of -58%.
11.
Given the clear lack of consensus in favour of any of the potential options, and the
disparity in the responses received highlighted above, there is no justification for
proceeding to the implementation stage based on the results of the public
consultation exercise. Consequently, and as many of the respondents highlighted
existing traffic issues as well as the potential traffic impact associated with the
redevelopment of Acklam Hall, detailed analysis of the results of a range of traffic
surveys undertaken on Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk during 2014 has been
carried out to establish the current position and to determine whether any action
needs to be taken in the short term.
Results of Traffic Surveys
12.
A number of traffic surveys were carried out on Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk
during 2014, namely:

Automatic traffic counts on Church Lane (west of Fane Grove) and St. Mary’s
Walk (north of Ambleside Grove), both of which were carried out during the
week commencing Monday 13 October 2014. Traffic volumes and vehicle
speeds were recorded during these surveys; and
3

A vehicle queue and delay survey on Church Lane at its junction with Acklam
Road, which was carried out on Monday 14 July 2014.
The results of these surveys are summarised below.
Automatic Traffic Counts
13.
Figure 1 illustrates the traffic flows recorded during the survey carried out on
Church Lane, west of its junction with Fane Grove. As can be seen, average
weekday traffic flows varied between 135 and 261 vehicles per hour (which equates
to between two and five vehicles per minute) over the period from 8 am to 6 pm,
with a pronounced ‘peak’ in the morning and the afternoon/early evening in line with
the pattern seen elsewhere across the Borough. Traffic flows on Saturday and
Sunday were lower than those during the week, with the result that the seven day
average was generally lower than the weekday average.
300
250
200
150
Weekday Average
Seven Day Average
100
50
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0
Figure 1:
14.
Church Lane, west of Fane Grove:
Average Hourly Two-Way Traffic Flow
Figure 2 illustrates the traffic flows recorded during the survey carried out on St.
Mary’s Walk, north of its junction with Ambleside Grove. The variation during the
day was higher at this location, with average weekday traffic flows of between 150
and 359 vehicles per hour (which equates to between two and six vehicles per
minute) over the period from 8 am to 6 pm. Again, there was a pronounced ‘peak’
in the morning and the afternoon/early evening in line with the pattern seen
4
elsewhere across the Borough. As on Church Lane, traffic flows on Saturday and
Sunday were lower than those during the week, with the result that the seven day
average was generally lower than the weekday average.
400
350
300
250
200
Weekday Average
Seven Day Average
150
100
50
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0
Figure 2:
15.
St. Mary’s Walk, north of Ambleside Grove:
Average Hourly Two-Way Traffic Flow
The average vehicle speed recorded on Church Lane was 26 mph, whilst the
average speed recorded on St. Mary’s Walk was 27 mph. Whilst both of these
figures are higher than the 20 mph speed limit in force, they are not inconsistent
with the character, geometry and alignment of the two roads.
Vehicle Queue and Delay Survey
16.
Figure 3 illustrates the average vehicle delay recorded for vehicles entering Acklam
Road from Church Lane during the morning peak period (i.e. from 7.30 to 9.30 am).
As can be seen, the average waiting time for drivers waiting to turn left varied
between 3 and 57 seconds over this period, with a sharp ‘spike’ between 8.15 and
8.30 am coinciding with the period when traffic flows on Acklam Road were at their
highest. The pattern for vehicles waiting to turn right was similar, with average
waiting times ranging between 19 and 73 seconds, although it should be noted that
the number of drivers attempting to make this manoeuvre during the period
surveyed was very low. Consequently, the average waiting time for all drivers was
similar to the average waiting time for those turning left.
5
17.
Figure 4 illustrates the average vehicle delay recorded for vehicles entering Acklam
Road from Church Lane during the afternoon/early evening peak period (i.e. from
2.30 to 6 pm). The average waiting time for drivers turning left was relatively
consistent, and ranged between 8 and 32 seconds. Although the average waiting
time for drivers turning right was generally higher, ranging between 10 and 80
seconds, it should be noted that the number of drivers attempting to make this
manoeuvre during the period surveyed was, again, very low. Consequently, the
average waiting time for all drivers was similar to the average waiting time for those
turning left.
18.
Although drivers entering Acklam Road from Church Lane experienced some
delays during both the morning and the afternoon/early evening peak periods, the
average waiting time was generally low. Whilst inconvenient, the fact that there is
some level of delay at such times discourages drivers from outside the immediate
area from using St. Mary’s Walk and Church Lane as a ‘rat run’, thereby reducing
the volume of traffic that uses this route on a regular basis.
80
70
60
50
Turning Left Average
Waiting Time (secs)
40
Turning Right Average
Waiting Time (secs)
30
Combined Average Waiting
Time (secs)
20
10
0
07:30 07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 09:00 09:15
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 09:00 09:15 09:30
Figure 3:
Church Lane at Acklam Road:
Average Waiting Time (AM Peak Period)
6
90
80
70
60
50
Turning Left Average
Waiting Time (secs)
40
Turning Right Average
Waiting Time (secs)
30
Combined Average Waiting
Time (secs)
20
10
0
Figure 4:
Church Lane at Acklam Road:
Average Waiting Time (PM Peak Period)
Accident History
19.
The Plan at Appendix 2 and Table at Appendix 3 to this Report illustrate the
accident record on Church Lane, St. Mary’s Walk and the adjacent residential area
over the five-year period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2015.
20.
As can be seen, a total of six injury accidents were recorded during this period. It
should be noted that only one of these accidents occurred on Church Lane or St.
May’s Walk, and that this accident – which involved a collision between two
vehicles at the bend connecting the two roads – took place in November 2010
during a period of icy weather. There was no common factor linking the remaining
five accidents.
Discussion
21.
A detailed analysis of the responses to the public consultation exercise carried out
in February and March this year has confirmed that none of the potential highway
improvement options affecting Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk received a positive
net approval rating from the occupiers of the properties on both roads and in the
immediate surrounding area, with a significant majority of respondents voting
against in each case. Consequently, it is not recommended that any of these
options is taken forward to the implementation stage.
22.
Analysis of the traffic survey data collected during 2014 would suggest that traffic
speeds and volumes on both Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk are consistent with
the character, geometry and alignment of the two roads, whilst the delays
experienced by drivers entering Acklam Road from Church Lane are not excessive,
even for those attempting to turn right during the morning and afternoon/evening
peak periods. The accident record on Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk is good,
7
with only one recorded injury accident (resulting in slight injuries) in the last five
years.
23.
Based on the evidence above, and the current uncertainty regarding the exact form
of those elements of the redevelopment scheme that will be served via Church
Lane and St. Mary’s Walk, there is little justification for taking any action at present
other than to continue to monitor the operation of both roads. It is, therefore,
recommended that a further report be prepared once the exact form of those
elements of the redevelopment scheme that will be served via Church Lane and St.
Mary’s Walk has been determined and the associated traffic impact can be
quantified.
24.
Given the current uncertainty regarding the exact form of those elements of the
redevelopment scheme that will be served via Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk,
and the time-limited nature of the Section 106 contributions secured for highway
improvements, it is recommended that a further report be prepared on or before 31
March 2017 should the situation still remain unresolved at that time. This will allow
sufficient time for any highway improvements recommended in that report to be
implemented and the associated monies claimed prior to the expiry of the Section
106 Agreements.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT (IA)
25.
The recommendations contained in this Report have been assessed through the
preparation of an Impact Assessment Level 1: Initial Screening Assessment. This
impact assessment has found that, based on the evidence gathered to date, there
are no concerns that the recommendations could have a disproportionate adverse
impact on a protected characteristic or community cohesion.
OPTION APPRAISAL
26.
A total of five potential highway improvement options affecting Church Lane and St.
Mary’s Walk were identified through a series of meetings held with Ward
Councillors and residents’ representatives in the period prior to the public
consultation exercise carried out earlier this year. A sixth option – ‘Do Nothing’ –
was also put forward as part of the consultation process.
CONSULTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
27.
As set out in paragraphs 5 to 24 of this Report. All of the consultees will be advised
of the agreed course of action by letter or e-mail, as appropriate.
FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND WARD IMPLICATIONS
Financial
28.
A total of £148,900 has been secured for improvements to the local highway
network through Section 106 contributions associated with the planning approvals
for the Acklam Hall Development (£129,900) and the recent housing development
by Miller Homes Limited (Sanctuary Close) on the former Swedish Mission Field on
Church Lane (£19,000). All costs associated with any highway improvements to the
local network will be met from these contributions.
8
29.
The Section 106 contribution from Miller Homes Limited expires on 11 March 2018,
whilst the Section 106 contribution from Acklam Hall Limited expires on 6 October
2019. This means that the highway improvements funded from these contributions
will need to be implemented, and the monies claimed, by these dates to ensure that
the funding is not lost.
Ward Implications
30.
The recommendations within this Report affect roads within the Acklam Ward. The
local Ward Councillors have been fully involved in the public consultation process.
Legal Implications
31.
None at this stage. Any legal issues associated with the preferred highway
improvement options that emerge following confirmation of the exact form of those
elements of the redevelopment scheme that will be accessed directly via Church
Lane and St. Mary’s Walk will be dealt with via the Council’s established
procedures.
RECOMMENDATIONS
32.
It is recommended that:
a) the existing situation on Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk in terms of traffic
volumes, speeds, delays and recorded injury accidents be noted;
b) no amendments to the existing highway layout on either road be introduced until
such time as the exact form and associated traffic impact of those elements of
the redevelopment scheme that will be accessed via Church Lane and St.
Mary’s Walk have been established;
c) a further report be prepared once the exact form and associated traffic impact of
those elements of the redevelopment scheme that will be accessed via Church
Lane and St. Mary’s Walk have been established, or by 31 March 2017 if the
situation is still unresolved, setting out the highway improvements required to
mitigate the predicted impact on the surrounding road network; and
d) traffic movements on Church Lane and St. Mary’s Walk be monitored during the
intervening period, together with the recorded injury accident record on both
roads.
REASONS
33.
To mitigate the impact of traffic associated with the Acklam Hall development on the
safe and efficient operation of the surrounding road network.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
34.
Single Member Executive Decision Report dated 2 February 2015 (Item no. 14/8
refers).
35.
Single Member Executive Decision Report dated 18 March 2015 (Item no. 14/10
refers).
9
AUTHOR: Rob Farnham
TEL NO:
728188
______________________________________________________
e-mail:
rob_farnham@middlesbrough.gov.uk
Website:
http://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk
10
APPENDIX 1
PUBLIC CONSULTATION EXERCISE, FEBRUARY/MARCH 2015:
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO OPTIONS 2 TO 5 INCLUSIVE
Properties on Church Lane &
St. Mary’s Walk
Properties accessed directly via
Church Lane & St. Mary’s Walk
Total
Option
For
Against
Net
Approval
Rating
2
(Traffic Calming on Full
Length of Church Lane &
St. Mary’s Walk)
20 (42%)
28 (58%)
-16%
20 (40%)
30 (60%)
-20%
40 (41%)
58 (59%)
-18%
3
(Point Closure at corner of
Church Lane & St. Mary’s
Walk)
32 (68%)
15 (32%)
+36%
11 (21%)
42 (79%)
-58%
43 (43%)
57 (57%)
-14%
4
(‘Left In, Left Out’
arrangement at Access to
Medical Village)
24 (52%)
22 (48%)
+4%
12 (26%)
34 (74%)
-48%
36 (39%)
56 (61%)
-22%
5
(‘Targeted’ Traffic Calming
at corner of Church Lane &
St. Mary’s Walk and in
vicinity of Green Lane
Primary Academy)
15 (35%)
28 (65%)
-30%
21 (42%)
29 (58%)
-16%
36 (39%)
57 (61%)
-22%
6
(Mini-Roundabout at
Access to Medical Village)
12 (27%)
32 (73%)
-46%
21 (46%)
25 (54%)
-8%
33 (37%)
57 (63%)
-26%
For
11
Against
Net
Approval
Rating
For
Against
Net
Approval
Rating
APPENDIX 2
12
APPENDIX 3
CHURCH LANE, ST. MARY’S WALK AND SURROUNDING AREA:
SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT DATA, 1 JULY 2010 TO 30 JUNE 2015
No.
Date
Time
Conditions
(Weather/
Carriageway)
Daylight?
(Y/N)
Severity of
Injuries
Description

1.
2.
16/11/10
27/01/12
08:40
15:58
Frost/Ice
Fine/Damp
Y
Vehicle/vehicle shunt (two cars):
driver of second car lost control in
icy conditions.
Y
Vehicle (car)/pedestrian collision:
pedestrian walked out from behind
parked vehicle.


Slight (27 year
old male
driver).
Slight (27 year
old female
passenger).

Failed to look properly.
Slight (37 year
old male
driver).

None given.


Failed to look properly.
Buildings, road signs, street
furniture.

Failed to look properly.
15:30
Fine/Dry
Y
03/09/13
22:49
Fine/Dry
N
Vehicle/vehicle collision (two cars):
driver travelling south on Hatfield
Avenue failed to give way.

4.
21/09/13
13:15
Fine/Dry
Y
Vehicle (car)/pedestrian collision:
pedestrian ran into road from
driveway of adjacent property.

5.
Slight (8 year
old female
pedestrian).

Y
Vehicle (car) reversing from
parking space adjacent to Acklam
Library surprised pedestrian, who
fell.
Serious (84
year old female
pedestrian).
15:58
Fine/Damp
13

Slight (30 year
old male
driver).
22/11/12
21/01/14

Slippery road (due to
weather).
Failed to judge other
person’s path or speed.

3.
6.

Crossing road masked by
stationary or parked
vehicle.
Failed to look properly.
Serious (14
year old male
pedestrian).
Vehicle/vehicle collision (car and
light van): driver of stationary
vehicle (car) opened door and
collided with passing vehicle (light
van).

Contributory Factor(s)