BOROUGH OF POOLE
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY GROUP
13 AUGUST 2007
The Meeting commenced at 10am and concluded at 12:05pm.
Present:
Councillor Burden (Chairman)
Councillor Gillard (Vice-Chairman)
Councillors Brooke, Gregory, Mrs Lavender, Mrs Moore (substituting for Councillor
Miss Wilson), Parker (substituting for Councillor Chandler), Trent and White.
Also attending:
Councillor Sorton.
Members of the public present: 4
TAG42.07
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chandler and Miss
Wilson (with the above substitutions).
TAG43.07
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
TAG49.07 – Penn Hill Junction Improvement – Councillors Gillard, Brooke,
Gregory, Mrs Lavender, Mrs Moore, Parker, Trent and White declared personal
interests as they had been lobbied.
TAG47.07 – Green Road Car Park – Councillor Brooke declared a personal
interest as his daughter lives in Green Road.
TAG47.07 – Green Road Car Park – Councillor Gillard declared a personal
interest as his daughter lives in Green Road.
TAG44.07
SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIRMAN, IS OF
SUFFICIENT URGENCY TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION
There were no items of urgent business.
TAG45.07
OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS
Steve Tite, Transportation Services, presented a report which considered
objections to the proposed yellow lines in Wimborne Road outside the Longfleet
Baptist Church.
1
A scheme to improve safety along this stretch of road was approved by this
Group on 18 January 2007. The Scheme comprised a package of measures,
including the imposition of yellow lines along one side of the road. These waiting
restrictions were advertised and objections were considered by this Advisory Group
at its meeting on 26 July 2007. At this Meeting, the Group confirmed its support for
the Scheme and recommended that the waiting restrictions be confirmed but
requested the Portfolio Holder to hold further discussions regarding the affects on
Longfleet Baptist Church before formally making this decision.
The Minister of Longfleet Baptist Church had written to object and two letters
had also been received from members of the congregation and the Minister had
addressed Members at the last meeting of this Advisory Group. The Objectors felt
that the Church Car Park was not big enough to accommodate all of the users of the
community buildings. Some of its spaces were regularly obstructed and some were
often used by residents. In addition, the removal of the parking spaces along
Wimborne Road would make it more difficult for their users to park whilst
exacerbating the problems within their own car park.
The Ladies Contact Group and Poole Council’s Carers Services Manager who
both used the Church buildings had also written to object that the restrictions would
cause difficulties to people wanting to attend their meetings.
Members were advised that the proposed restrictions would remove
approximately 5 spaces in the stretch of Wimborne Road between Marnhull Road
and Garland Road.
Blue Badge holders would be able to park and drivers would be able to pick
up or set down on the yellow lines. There was also an exemption for funeral cars
and wedding cars.
The Church had a car park for 14 cars and parking was available in Marnhull
Road, Haines Avenue and the opposite side of Wimborne Road. Spaces were
generally available in these areas during the working day with a 2 hour restriction
between 8am-6pm, Monday-Friday.
At the last Meeting of this Advisory Group, the Portfolio Holder was
recommended to approve the Church’s request to advertise waiting restrictions in
Marnhull Road to clear parking from the last four spaces on the Church forecourt. At
that time, the Portfolio Holder requested further discussion of two other suggestions
that had been made at the previous Meeting. Following this, a meeting had taken
place between a Ward Councillor, Transportation Officers and the Minister of the
Church in order to observe the issues on site where a further third alternative had
also been suggested. Members were provided with detailed information regarding
these options:

Single yellow lines – Traffic Regulation Order being relaxed to apply only
between 8am-6pm Monday-Saturday along the frontage of the Church.
Impose restrictions on western side – changing the kerb extension scheme
to the other side of the road.
2

Amendments to existing yellow lines – option to shorten the existing yellow
lines opposite the Church to provide one more space in Marnhull Road.
Additional scope to provide at least 3 more spaces in Haines Avenue by
shortening the existing yellow lines at the Wimborne Road junction.
Steve Tite, Transportation Services, concluded by stating that the suggestions
had been proposed in order to maximise the car parking spaces around the Church.
A Member referred to the site visit that had taken place and stated that he felt
the new proposals had adequately addressed the concerns expressed by users of
Longfleet Baptist Church.
A Member stated that whilst he supported the majority of the proposals, he
had some concern at the proposals for Haines Avenue due to the fact that there
would be significant narrowing in Haines Avenue at its junction with Wimborne Road.
RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder be requested to approve:(i)
the proposed waiting restrictions in Wimborne Road being
made as advertised; and
(ii)
the amendments to the waiting restrictions in Marnhull Road
and Haines Avenue (option c) be advertised as shown in
“Appendix B”.
For – Councillors Brooke, Burden, Gillard, Gregory, Mrs Lavender, Mrs
Moore, Parker and White.
Against – None.
Abstention – Councillor Trent abstained from voting on this item as he
had not been present for the Officer Presentation.
TAG46.07
SURPLUS LAND AT FRESHWATER DRIVE
Steve Tite, Transportation Services, presented a report which considered
declaring an area of highway verge at the junction of Freshwater Drive and
Carisbrooke Crescent, Hamworthy, surplus to Highway requirements.
Members were advised that Freshwater Drive and Carisbrooke Crescent were
recorded on the Highway Register as highways maintained at public expense. The
verge was maintained as a highway verge. Although public highway, the freeholder
of the land and under the roads, footways and verge had never been conveyed to
the Council and was retained by the original estate developer.
Despite the presence of an area of open space and the play area on the
opposite side of the Road, the land at the junction of Freshwater Drive and
Carisbrooke Crescent was being used as an informal gathering point for local
children in the evenings and at weekends which was creating disturbance to the
residents of the adjacent property at 45 Freshwater Drive. The resident of 45
3
Freshwater Drive had found and made contact with the freehold owner who had
agreed to sell the land if a Stopping Up Order could be obtained.
Members were then provided with information regarding the process for
applications to the Magistrates Court to Stop Up the Highway, together with the
highway implications and the financial implications.
In response to a Member question, Steve Tite, Transportation Services,
advised that any objections received to the legal notice would be considered by the
Magistrates Court. Therefore, he concluded by stating that this report was merely
seeking approval “to advertise”.
A Member raised a concern that he would not wish this land to become a
development site.
A Member concurred with the view that this area did have development
potential and he would therefore suggest that the proposal be advertised and that
this issue then be addressed through the planning process.
On this subject, a Member stated that he could not support any proposal that
could possibly lend to this land being used for “private gain” and therefore he could
not support the proposed Stopping Up Order.
A Member referred to the problems being experienced by children
congregating in this area which he felt these proposals were attempting to address.
However, he was aware that these actions, if approved, would merely displace the
problem elsewhere.
Due to the concerns being expressed regarding the development potential of
this land, it was proposed and seconded
“that this decision be deferred for consideration by the local Area Committee
and also to enable an informal consultation exercise to be undertaken before further
consideration by this Advisory Group prior to determining whether this land is surplus
to requirements and also seek advice from Legal Services regarding covenant
options.”
On being put to the vote, this was unanimously CARRIED.
RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder be requested to defer any
decision for consideration by the local Area Committee and an informal
consultation exercise be undertaken before further consideration by this
Advisory Group prior to determining whether this land is surplus to
requirements and also seek legal advice from Legal Services regarding
covenant options.
For – Unanimous
4
TAG47.07
GREEN ROAD CAR PARK
Steve Tite, Transportation Services, presented a report which considered a
petition objecting to the proposed use of the Green Road Car Park by staff at the
extended Old Town First School.
Members were reminded that the Green Road Car Park had 25 spaces and
was used exclusively by car park permit holders at a cost of £60 per annum. On the
basis of varying usage, 30 permits were issued for these 25 spaces, although even
at this level, the Car Park was typically underutilised.
The Old Town First School was about to be extended and there was a need to
accommodate parking for a larger number of staff on a more concentrated site. As
part of the Planning Application process the staff parking provision had to be
demonstrated and this Advisory Group was therefore being asked to consider the
suggestion of joint use of the Green Road Car Park. Members were provided with a
copy of a report that had been considered by this Group on 7 July 2005 and were
agreed that any subsequent change of these previously approved arrangements
would require the conditions of the Planning Commission for the school
redevelopment to be reassessed.
A recent Planning Application for a new dwelling in Green Road had prompted
concerns amongst residents about parking in the Area. This had involved a petition
being presented to the Planning Committee and, although it made specific mention
to the Planning Application, residents’ representatives had pressed Ward Councillors
to use the Petition to review the decision on joint use of the Car Park.
The Car Park was relatively lightly used as residents were also able to buy
permits to park in the on-street resident parking spaces and this was generally more
convenient for them. The Car Park was particularly lightly used during the day when
the school staff would be making use of their own permits, however, the Car Park
could be reorganised to provide 30 parking spaces (an additional 5 spaces) and to
separate the shared spaces from the full-time residents’ spaces. This would cost
approximately £8,000 and the Council had sufficient Town Centre Developer
Contributions towards car parking to fund this.
Members were advised that the subsequent arrangements would therefore be
as follows:
17 spaces made available to the school on Wednesdays during term time
only, for the period 8am – 4pm.
 Existing permit holders be offered the following options:-
Retain current permit conditions of unrestricted parking in the Car
Park, offered up to a maximum of 13 people, allocated according to
need, at a cost of £60.
-
offer modified permit to allow residents parking in the Car Park
outside of school times (8am – 4pm) as well as on-street parking at
all times, at a cost of £45.
5
-
Permits offered for on-street Old Town Parking Scheme at standard
rate of £30.
Members were advised that it was proposed to monitor usage within these
new arrangements with a view to issuing further permits if the Car Park was clearly
underutilised.
In conclusion, Members were advised that the land on which this Car Park
was located was owned by the Council (Housing). Linking this Car Park to the
School in terms of staff and visitor parking provision effectively limited the potential
for future development of the land should the opportunity arise. This had also been
taken into account as part of the overall scheme for the Old Town First School
development.
A Member commented that he was minded to criticise the Planning process
here as he felt that all of this should have been in place prior to the determination of
the Planning Application.
A Member concurred with this view and added that the Children’s Centre
would also shortly be on site as well which would exacerbate the problems being
experienced.
A Member commented that he had some concerns regarding the proposed
layout of the car parking spaces as he felt the spacing for reversing etc would prove
extremely difficult.
Given the concerns expressed, it was proposed and seconded that the final
decision on the layout of the car park spaces be delegated to the Head of
Transportation Services in consultation with the Ward Councillors. On being put to
the vote, this was unanimously CARRIED.
RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder be requested to approve that:(i)
the previously approved arrangements for joint use of the car
park be confirmed;
(ii)
the decision and layout of the car park spaces be delegated to
the Head of Transportation Services in consultation with the
Ward Councillors; and
(iii)
the Head of Transportation Services be authorised to allocate
resident parking permits for the car park to maximise its use.
For – Unanimous
TAG48.07
WATERLOO ROAD CYCLEWAY
Steve Tite, Transportation Services, presented a report which considered
proposals for a two-way, shared use, cycleway along Waterloo Road.
6
Members were reminded that currently, cycle routes existed in Lower
Blandford Road and Gravel Hill to the north and from Fleetsbridge Roundabout
towards the Town Centre in the southerly direction. This proposed Scheme would
provide the missing link along Waterloo Road to Darbys Corner Roundabout.
Members were advised that, being the “desired” route, many cyclists already used
this and this Scheme would therefore formalise what was happening at present and
make it safer for cyclists and all road users. The current Capital Programme
included the investigation of cycle facilities for both Waterloo Road and at Darbys
Corner.
Members were provided with further detailed information regarding the
Scheme, together with consultation that had been undertaken with Cycling Liaison
Action Group, together with the financial implications.
In response to a question raised regarding other “missing links” in the
Borough (Cabot Lane-Broadstone Way), Steve Tite, Transportation Services,
advised that all of these “missing cycle links” were currently being addressed as part
of a comprehensive network.
On discussing this issue further, a question was raised as to whether or not
the works being proposed here were actually of the highest priority. A view was
expressed that the Darbys Corner Roundabout was the main area needing to be
addressed.
A Member commented that she felt Members hands were somewhat “tied”
here as this was simply spending Developer Contributions so she felt this money
needed to be spent as these works would merely be formalising what was already
being used.
In response to a Member question, Julian McLaughlin, Head of Transportation
Services, advised that these “links” were key to bike users in terms of cycleway
usage and these proposals represented just one of those “missing links”.
A Member stated that he felt that road “junctions” had to be deemed as
priority and therefore he could not support this proposed spend as he did not see this
as a priority.
Due to the concerns being expressed, it was proposed and seconded
that this issue be deferred for a further report to be presented to this Group on
all options for “priority based” works in this area, including the junctions.
On being put to the vote, this was unanimously CARRIED.
RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder be requested to defer this
issue for a further report to be presented to this Advisory Group on all options
for “priority based” works in this area, including the junctions.
7
For – Unanimous
TAG49.07
PENN HILL SIGNALS JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT
Julian McLaughlin, Head of Transportation Services, presented a report which
advised Members that, following previous reports to this Group on 30 November
2006 and 18 January 2007, a detailed design had now been completed.
Members were advised that the first of the Prime Transport Corridors 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 of:

Ashley Road (Sea View-Redlands Roundabout)
Station Road-Penn Hill Avenue-Leicester Road-Lindsay Road
This was on the basis that improvement to parallel routes would enable better
traffic flow along the corridor as a whole.
Members were advised that an improvement had already been implemented
at the junction of Lindsay Road with Leicester Road where the right turn out of
Lindsay Road was difficult, particularly at peak times. This led to considerable
congestion as well as causing extensive “rat-running” through the nearby roads of
Wilderton Road and Leicester Road. This Junction had now been signalised and
congestion had reduced considerably.
The Penn Hill junction was the next for consideration and Members were
provided with a plan depicting the existing Penn Hill signalised junction via an
Appendix to the Report. The existing layout was a five arm junction which made it
difficult to control efficiently. At peak times the junction was over-capacitated with
queues forming on Penn Hill Avenue to the west and Leicester Road to the east.
At its meeting on 18 January 2007 and following a consultation exercise, this
Advisory Group unanimously supported a suggested improvement scheme for
development into a detailed design.
Members were then provided with detailed information of the scheme
previously approved by this Advisory Group, together with further detailed
considerations on:








Penn Hill Junction
Archway Road
North Lodge Road
Bournemouth Road
Capacity Improvements
Wessex Waterworks
Project Programme
Environmental Improvement
Cycling
8

Financial considerations
Steve Tite, Transportation Services, concluded by stating that this Scheme
already had outline approval and had also been considered by the local Area
Committee twice, together with extensive letter drops to residents within the vicinity.
A Member stated that, whilst he had minor concerns here regarding this
Scheme, he welcomed the involvement of the Local Area Committee regarding this
issue and also noted that this would be considered further by both Cabinet and
Council and therefore was satisfied that, if appropriate, minor adjustments to the
Scheme could be made at a later stage.
The Chairman then invited Mr Fearnly to address the Group on behalf of
cyclists in Poole.
Mr Fearnly then addressed the Group and in summary, Mr Fearnly stated that
cyclists would like to see cycle lanes in both Archway Road and North Lodge Road
and also the banning of vehicles parking to deliver by the Penn Central traffic lights.
The Chairman then invited Mr Du Lieu to address the Group regarding this
matter which he did in the following terms:“It grieves me to speak against the Officer’s design, report and
recommendations for this junction but, it is considered this improvement seriously
contravenes the DUTY the Council owes to pedestrians and cyclists.
I realise the Officers are subject to, what is widely considered, conflicting
guidelines and advice issued by Government departments but, the DUTY imposed
by the Government in the Road Traffic Management Act 2004 is very clear,
supported by guidelines and is being totally ignored.
Paragraph 3.2 in YOUR LTP says, and I quote
“The TMA imposes a duty on local traffic authorities to manage their networks
in order to secure the expeditious movement of traffic (i.e., all road users, including
cyclists and pedestrians.
Sorry to labour the point – this is not advice – this is a DUTY, presumably
enforceable by law. Members, it is not only the PAG21 Transport Group who feel
this proposed scheme has but one objective, to improve journey times for motor
vehicles. (Para 8, page 9 of the Officer’s report, says, “failure to address these
problems will result in increasing journey times”). Elsewhere in the report it claims
better provision for pedestrians and cyclists. This is NOT the view of pedestrians
and cyclists.
You have heard what Mr Fearnley has had to say about the improved facilities
for cyclists.
9
For pedestrians, do you really believe, Members, that by taking away two
existing crossing points and the central island, things are improved for pedestrians?
Paragraph 5.1.4 says The Penn Hill Avenue shops will be linked.
Leaving the island and removing the barrier might improve the link but this
would interfere with another obnoxious strategy “Walking with Traffic”.
This will entail pedestrians waiting for vehicles to clear all arms of the junction
before they are allowed to cross the road. Meanwhile they are held like sheep
behind barriers. In inclement weather this is disgraceful.
Section 6 refers to Environment Improvement recommended in ‘Manual for
Streets’.
Yes, artistic landscaping is highlighted in the Manual for Streets. However,
what is highlighted for me is in the opening paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.
A road is, in essence, a highway. Its main function, to accommodate the
movement of traffic. For example, Dorset Way where pedestrians are excluded.
A street, on the other hand, is typically lined with buildings and public spaces
(I suggest like Penn Hill corner and Leicester Road).
Movement is still a key function, but there are several others of similar
importance.
Para 2.1.7 says “The traffic function can still be given too high a priority. This
acts to the detriment of other desirable characteristics. Identified as the most
important is “the place function”, hence the recommendation for enhancing the
environment.
But Members, what is the point of enhancing the environment when it is spoilt
with either long queues of standing traffic or traffic racing to get the green light?
The Transport Group queries the effectiveness of artistic landscaping of
footways helping to slow traffic at this junction which is being specifically improved to
increase the flow and volume of traffic and reduce journey times.
The Officer’s report is long and most paragraphs can be queried, but I think I
have said enough for it to be realised there are serious questions to be answered
about what this scheme does to satisfy your DUTY to ALL road users.
Why has traffic on the main A35 decreased by 12% and the traffic along
Lindsay Road increased by 29%/ (LTP page 40). Surely it is the A35 which should
be developed to handle more traffic.
Research has shown that building new roads attracts more traffic until that too
gets congested. Developing this route to achieve better journey times will only result
in attracting more traffic to this route until it is also congested like Poole Road.
10
Some of the stated objectives in the LTP are:
1. controlling the rate of traffic growth
2. no increase in peak period traffic flows to urban centres.
I suggest this Scheme will do exactly the opposite.
Finally, I know members of one residents association are unhappy with this
scheme and, at Area Committee meetings earlier this year, concern was expressed
about the speed and increasing volume of traffic using Penn Hill Avenue.
It was said planning applications had already been granted for the building of
accommodation for elderly people. Does increasing the volume of traffic go hand in
hand with this type of development?
I know that it is not usual practice to refer Strategic Routes to Area
Committees, BUT, as this has such an impact on “a popular hub for the local
community” para 6.1, I would ask Members to give serious consideration for this
matter to go to the Area Committee so that residents can make their views known to
the Ward Councillors.
I realise there has already been a consultation exercise but I think at that
stage the full impact of this scheme was not realised.”
Mr Du Lieu concluded by thanking Members for listening.
A Ward Councillor stated that there had been very wide public consultation
regarding this scheme and he welcomed the proposed one-way system in Archway
Road.
He concluded that he would also support this being presented to the local
Area Committee again but purely, “for information only” on the proposed design
Scheme.
In response to a Member question, Julian McLaughlin, Head of Transportation
Services, advised that Transportation Services had very good working relations with
CYCLING LIAISON ACTION GROUP and added that there was now fully linked
provision for cyclists from Poole through to Bournemouth Town Centre.
A Member stated that he felt it was crucial to “strike the right balance” here,
stating that it was important to enable traffic to move more easily through junctions
and he therefore applauded the work that had been undertaken on this scheme.
A Member stated that whilst he supported the provision of cycleway facilities,
he had some concern at the provision of two-way cycle routes in one-way roads,
given that one side would be cycling against the flow of traffic.
On discussing this Scheme further, the following issues were suggested for
consideration:-
11


the existing signal controlled pedestrian crossing in Penn Hill be
retained
the proposed two-way section of North Lodge Road north of the
junction with Parkstone Avenue, be retained
and that these be monitored as part of the overall scheme.
RECOMMENDED that the Portfolio Holder recommends Cabinet and
Council to approve:(i)
the Scheme as detailed in the Report with the addition of:-
the existing signal controlled pedestrian crossing in Penn Hill
Avenue being retained; and
the proposed two-way section of North Lodge Road north to
the junction with Parkstone Avenue being retained;
and that these be monitored as part of the overall review of the
scheme performance and that this be reported back to this
Advisory Group 6 months after it has come into operation and
that:
-
-
proposals for possible loading arrangements in the lay-by of
Penn Hill Avenue and the banning of loading in Canford Cliffs
Road be developed and brought back to this Advisory Group;
and
the scheme details be reported “for information only” to the
Canford Cliffs and Penn Hill Area Committee on 26 September
2007;
(ii)
the advertising of the associated changes to Traffic Regulation
Orders; and
(iii)
a request to Leisure Services to dedicate a small strip of land in
Leicester Road for footway widening, subject to Planning
Committee approving works near to trees in the verge.
For – Councillors Gillard, Gregory, Mrs Lavender, Mrs Long, Mrs Moore,
Parker and White.
Against – None
Abstentions – Councillors Brooke, Burden and Trent.
CHAIRMAN
12