[ JTHS News ] [ Safer Routes ] [ PACT ] [ Scarecrows ] [ royal visit ]

Safer Routes to School

Page last update on 20 April 2009

There is a Consultation exhibition 2:00pm to 8:00 pm 20 April at John Taylor High School with a public meeting 7:00 pm to 800 pm

Let your County Councillor Mr. Tim Corbett know your views email by 23 April

Staffordshire County Council
“Making Barton under Needwood safer for all:
Creating Safer routes to School”
Revised Proposals following Steering Group meeting

A report by the Transport and Environment sub-committee for the
Barton under Needwood Parish Council Meeting  2^nd April 2009

(1) That in view of the comments expressed in our report, dated 5^th March, Staffordshire County Council be requested to provide more explanation for the no waiting at any time parking restrictions on the north side of Station Road.

(2) That the Parish Council support the investigation into the application of term time only parking restrictions along Dunstall Road

 (3) That the Parish Council continues to express concern at the proposal for the mini-roundabout on two counts, firstly, that it does not understand how it can meet the stated objective of reducing speed and secondly, with regard to the likely detrimental impact of the proposal in the heart of the Conservation Area.

(4) That in the light of the above recommendation(3), the Parish Council requests Staffordshire County Council to provide further explanation as to the justification for the scheme and to demonstrate how the proposal will positively preserve and enhance the Conservation Area. In this latter regard, it is also requested that full consultation is undertaken with East Staffordshire Borough Council as responsible local planning authority and that in devising the scheme, attention is given to reducing or minimising street furniture and clutter.

(5) That the Parish Council, undertakes to give publicity to the proposed Exhibition and to encourage as many residents as possible to attend and make their views known to the Staffordshire County Council representatives

(1) Background

1.         At the last Parish Council meeting (5^th March 2009), Councillors received and considered a report on the consultation leaflet from Staffordshire County Council entitled. ”Making Barton under Needwood safer for all: Creating Safer Routes to School”. The leaflet had been sent to all households in the village over the weekend of 20^th /21^st February 2009. It represented a further stage in the County Council’s “Safer Routes to School” programme, which had commenced approximately 18 months previously. The aim of this programme is to work in partnership with local communities to create safer networks to and from schools with the aim of encouraging children (and their parents) to walk and cycle.

1.2.      The leaflet set out traffic management proposals in four areas of the village:-

-          a proposed mini-roundabout at the junction of Dunstall Road and Main Street;

-          parking restrictions by Thomas Russell Infants School on Station Road;

-          parking restrictions on Dunstall Road, north of John Taylor High School; and

-          parking restrictions on Efflinch Lane around Thomas Russell Junior School.

1.3.      The report considered by the Parish Council made a number of comments, briefly summarised below:

-          very short time for consultation, about two weeks, and precious little explanation as to the rationale for the proposals;

-          not clear how these proposals would actually meet the stated aims of creating safer networks and encouraging sustainable travel;

-          the stated aim of the mini-roundabout is to “slow traffic, and particularly HGVs, down near John Taylor High School giving drivers better opportunities to spot vehicles and pedestrians”. It was felt that in the absence of any accompanying information about speeds of traffic, then there was little justification for changing the present arrangements;

-          the apparent removal of an area of pedestrian refuge outside the Shoulder of Mutton PH, to make room for the mini-roundabout would be detrimental to the overall streetscape at this important focus to the village in the heart of the Conservation Area. There was no apparent evidence that Staffordshire County Council, in devising these proposals, had taken into account their obligation to preserve and enhance the Conservation Area;

-          draconian approach to parking restrictions through the use of double yellow lines in Station Road and Dunstall Road to resolve a problem which was not permanent but either term time or school time related; single yellow lines on just one side of the road, as an alternative, were recommended in both cases;

-          no options other than double yellow lines had been considered along Dunstall Road;

-          whilst single yellow lines on Efflinch Lane had been supported, it was feared that there was still a pedestrian/vehicular conflict on Gilmour Lane which had not been addressed.

1.4       The meeting accepted the report’s recommendations with the proviso that the County Council also be asked to take account of a potential proposal for a turning/drop-off area, off Station Road. It was felt that in the long term at least this suggestion would resolve many of the village’s congestion problems at school opening and closing times and, to a large extent, remove the necessity for these proposals.

(2) Consultation Results

2.1       Following the deadline for comments on 6^th March 2009, a meeting of the Safer Routes to School Steering Group was held on 12^th March 2009. This meeting considered the representations that had been received. Councillors have received a detailed version of the responses under separate cover. Altogether 759 responses were received to the leaflet together with a number of letters.

2.2       Clearly, from these results, the majority of the residents who responded to the consultation favoured the proposals as set out in the leaflet. In considering the representations in detail, however, we understand that the Steering Group has chosen to make some modifications to these proposals, as set out below. We do not as yet know the reasons for these changes. These modifications are also expected to be the subject of an Exhibition (staffed by representatives of Staffordshire County Council), proposed to take place on 20^th April 2009, although the date and venue have still to be confirmed.  

(3) Amended Proposals and Comments

3.1       These amendments provide a more comprehensive approach to the Safer Routes to School programme, and in particular, the proposals for the walking bus and cycle shelter are to be warmly welcomed.

3.2       On Station Road, parking restrictions (no waiting at any time, presumably double yellow lines) are to be pursued at Station Road, although only on the north side. This partly meets our previously expressed views, but some explanation as to the need for a permanent solution to a school time problem would still be helpful.

3.3       On Dunstall Road, it looks as though both sides are still being targeted for parking restrictions, although we welcome the investigation into whether they can be applied in term time only.

Any views on Palmer Close and Gilmour Lane????

3.4       The main area of concern, however, remains the mini-roundabout at the junction of Dunstall Road and Main Street. Despite the public response in favour of the proposal, we feel that we must reiterate our previously expressed view. The stated aim of the mini-roundabout is to slow traffic, especially HGVs. Staffordshire County Council, as far as we are aware, has still not provided any evidence about the nature of speed in this location. We find it hard to believe that traffic is going excessively fast at school opening and closing times. Indeed at these times, congestion works to slow traffic to a beneficial crawl. Thus, we just cannot understand how a mini-roundabout, raised or flat, will meet the stated objectives and would request that Staffordshire County Council supplies more information to justify this proposal at the proposed Exhibition.

3.5       We also remain concerned about the impact these traffic management proposals will have on the Conservation Area. The construction of the mini-roundabout would seem to involve eating into a key pedestrian area and public space outside the Shoulder of Mutton PH., in the heart of the village and the Conservation Area. We are concerned, not only at the loss of this pedestrian refuge on a desire line to John Taylor High School, but also that Staffordshire County Council seems to have ignored the sensitivity of this important location. We would therefore request that at the Exhibition the County Council demonstrate how a mini-roundabout if whatever form can be made to make a positive contribution to the area so as to preserve and enhance the Conservation Area. We would also request that East Staffordshire Borough Council as responsible planning authority be fully consulted and that in designing the scheme consideration is given to reducing or minimising street furniture and clutter.

3.6       We understand that the suggestion for the turning/drop-off area, off Station Road was discussed at the Steering Group meeting. The proposal is dependent on private land being made available and consequently its implementation would be dependent on the progress of the Newbold extension proposal. There is currently no certainty as to if and when this proposal might come to fruition. In addition, the budget for Safer Routes to School may not be available at a later date.

3.7       We also welcome the almost 100% response to the question supporting cycling and walking. We therefore hope that in the light of this response any additional proposals for “walking buses” or cycling routes, aimed at increasing  cycling and walking to school will receive universal endorsement and take-up and consequently assist in reducing congestion.

Transport and Environment sub-committee March 2009

TOP

Staffordshire County Council Consultation leaflet:
“Making Barton under Needwood safer for all:
Creating Safer Routes to School”

A report by the Transport and Environment sub-committee for Barton under Needwood Parish Council Meeting 5th March 2009

Outline and Recommendation

Staffordshire County Council has issued for public consultation a leaflet setting out traffic management proposals in order to provide a safer road network and encourage walking and cycling. The deadline for comments is 6^th March 2009.

Following earlier consultations and survey work, proposals are put forward for four main areas in the village. This report makes detailed and constructive comments on both the specific proposals and the quality of the consultation process.

In the light of these comments, the report also suggests a way forward to work with the County Council, so as to revise these proposals, hopefully allow time for one further public exhibition, and permit implementation as soon as practically possible, within the current calendar year.

Recommendation

That Staffordshire County Council be thanked for the opportunity of being able to make comments on the proposals contained within,

“Making Barton under Needwood safer for all: Creating Safer Routes to School” and that this report, including the recommendations, on each of the proposals, be forwarded to the Council as representing the views and comments of Barton under Needwood Parish Council

(1) Introduction and Background

1.1 Over the weekend of 20th/21st February 2009, most households within the village received a consultation leaflet from Staffordshire County Council, entitled, “Making Barton under Needwood safer for all: Creating Safer Routes to School”. According to the leaflet, the number of children being driven to school has increased four-fold over the last twenty years. For many villages like Barton this causes congestion, hazards and inconvenience.

1.2 The County Council’s “Safer Routes to School” programme seeks to work in partnership with local communities to create safer networks to and from schools with the aim of encouraging children (and their parents) to walk and cycle. In order to develop proposals to achieve this objective, the County Council established a Steering Group, consisting of head teachers, the police, emergency services, local councillors and the County Council’s Education Road Safety Officer. The County Council also canvassed local opinions, from the households in the vicinity of the three schools. From these surveys, the leaflet states that residents identified 6 main locations of concern, and that 79% would support engineering measures like zebra crossings and parking restrictions to help ease congestion.

1.3 The leaflet sets out traffic management proposals in four areas of the village:

- a proposed mini-roundabout at the junction of Dunstall Road and Main Street;

- parking restrictions by Thomas Russell Infants School on Station Road;

- parking restrictions on Dunstall Road, north of John Taylor High School; and

- parking restrictions on Efflinch Lane around Thomas Russell Junior School.

Views on traffic management proposals in these locations are requested and there is a pre-paid postage card and 7 questions of the “yes/no” variety to assist with responses. The deadline for comments is Friday 6th March 2009.

1.4 This Safer Routes to School programme has been running in the village over the last eighteen months. Councillors will recall a previous consultation on a number of proposals, more or less, at the same time last year. Then, the consultation was less extensive, being limited to households in the immediate vicinity of the proposals. The consultation contained proposals for “speed ramps and cushions”, more extensive parking restrictions and a gate limiting access to Gilmour Lane. Local residents were concerned at the impact of the speed humps, in particular, on all traffic users in the village and, as a result, felt that the consultation should have been widened to include all residents, rather than those just immediately affected.

These views were communicated to Staffordshire County Council. As a consequence, we now have this more extensive village-wide consultation and some of the more controversial proposals have been deleted. Of the original proposals, only the zebra crossing close to the infant school was introduced in 2008.

1.5 This report sets out our general comments on the content of the leaflet and more detailed comments on each of the specific proposals, on a page by page basis, as they appear in the leaflet.

1.6 We acknowledge that in the following comments, we make constructive criticisms of the quality and the content of this consultation, but we also wish to remain positive and work pro-actively with the County Council. As a result, in the concluding section to this report, we have suggested a way forward to assist implementation as soon as practically possible.

(2) Creating Safer Routes to School - the problem and what can be done?

2.1 The leaflet states that there has been a fourfold increase in traffic, but it is not clear if this is a national, regional or county-wide figure. In order to give the leaflet a more distinctive and local flavour, it would have been helpful to know the figures for Barton. What are the current percentages, for example, of the school population that use different forms of transport, bus, cycle, walking and car? Measuring the change in use by transport mode from such base data could then be used to identify the success or otherwise of these proposals.

This is a country-wide figure. It is not possible to measure figures for Barton as we do not have these figures from 20 years ago. It is national knowledge that this increase in traffic, due to the increase in people with cars is causing more congestion around schools.

However, we do have data from surveys undertaken by parents in January 2006 regarding modes of transport, so these can be compared to figures in a couple of years or so

These figures are shown in the Pupils surveys document (attached)

2.2 The leaflet states the aim of the Safer Routes to School programme is both to create safer networks and encourage children to walk and cycle. If they already have some information concerning existing transport modes for school travel, then the question must be asked, how does the County Council propose to measure the second objective of increasing safety?

See above

2.3 The leaflet makes reference to surveys of parents and pupils. We also assume that a number of technical surveys would also have been carried out, and we have also referred to last year’s consultation. As far as we are aware, the results of these surveys and last year’s consultation have not been made publicly available. At the very least, we would have expected a report to have accompanied and complemented this particular consultation. It should have been sent to the Parish Council and made publicly available in the local library. The availability of this information could have given a greater insight into the thinking and the rationale for the proposals.

We will try to include this as part of the public exhibition

2.4 The leaflet makes reference to Wales Lane as one of the six areas of concern, but no proposals are included for this location.

There are currently no proposals for Wales Lane. Through the steering group meetings and the representatives on this group, the current proposals have been approved and hence put forward for public consultation. Any further proposals or ideas should ideally come through the steering group representatives, but are unlikely to be implemented in the summer 2009 with the other proposals.

(3) Creating safer routes to school - mini-roundabout

3.1 This is the only specific proposal that is accompanied by some justification, by way of explanation. The aim of the mini-roundabout is to, ”slow traffic, and particularly HGVs, down near John Taylor High School giving drivers better opportunities to spot vehicles and pedestrians”. This statement implies that traffic is perhaps going too fast at the moment. No information is given regarding traffic speeds, but we find it hard to believe that traffic is going excessively fast at school opening and closing times. At these times, congestion works to slow traffic to a beneficial crawl. The existing school crossing patrol at this point also acts as a speed reducing feature.

3.2 Specific mention is made of the need to reduce the speed of HGVs. We wonder what evidence the County Council has with regard to the speed of this particular class of vehicle. We assume that HGVs are unable to proceed any faster than a car at school opening and closing times. Outside of these times, whilst we are concerned at the number of HGVs using our village streets, we are not necessarily aware of them using excess speed, especially in this location.

On 22nd May 2007 speed surveys were carried out on Station Road and Wales Lane (see attached Speed Surveys document). The survey for Station Road shows an 85th percentile speed of 36mph eastbound and 32mph westbound. These calculations included 7 HGVs, and were undertaken between 10:25am and 11:40am. It must be noted that Department for

Transport guidance states that where designing a mini-roundabout, speed surveys must be taken at the worst time (i.e. when traffic may be travelling fastest) regardless of the type of scheme. We therefore have to design for these worst-case speeds of 36mph and 32mph respectively.

3.3 We fear that, paradoxically, the proposal for the mini-roundabout by freeing traffic flows could help to increase traffic speeds and be detrimental to public safety. Without further explanation, it is difficult to understand how a mini-roundabout in this location will actually achieve the stated objective.

The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 5, Section 2 (TA 91/05 – Provision for Non-Motorised Users) states in Chapter 7, paragraph 7.11:

“Well designed mini roundabouts generally reduce traffic speeds”

The Department for Transport’s “mini-roundabouts, good practice guidance”

(http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/gpg/miniroundaboutsgoodpractice.pdf)

section 2 states various uses of a mini-roundabout. These include:

“2.3 Improving the Operation of an Existing Junction” – “…to improve junction operation.”

“2.4 As an Accident Remedial measure” – “to reduce the number of accidents at a junction [and] …to reduce the severity of accidents at a junction”

“2.5 As a Traffic Calming Measure” – “reducing traffic speeds and increasing driver awareness”. This section states that “The use of a mini-roundabout in isolation as a speed reducing measure is more contentious and has met with mixed success”. It should be noted that the mini-roundabout is not being proposed in isolation due to the introduction of the raised deflection on the westbound entrance, and two islands at the Main Street junctions, which also act as traffic-calming measures.

3.4 Does the need to slow traffic imply some kind of accident record? If so then could we be permitted to see the details?

Slower traffic in the village will help to encourage pupils and their parents to walk to school. There is a small accident record in this area. However, this junction has been stated as a problem area by pupils and their parents during the Safe Routes to Schools surveys.

3.5 It is not clear from the diagram, but it looks like the radius for the mini roundabout eats into the existing paved area outside the Shoulder of Mutton Public House. This area provides an extended footpath and pedestrian refuge for customers to use in safety. It is a focal point for the village and an important focus in the Conservation Area. We fail to understand how taking away part of this paved area – if indeed that is what is proposed - will achieve greater public safety or indeed encourage cycling and walking. If we want to increase safety and encourage walking then surely the opposite is true. We need to increase the paved areas, particularly on key routes to schools.

The area of highway land needed for the mini-roundabout will take away part of the paved area outside the public house. However, some extended paved area will be installed on the other side of the road (by the memorial) to allow for the deflection of the entrance on to the roundabout.

As you are aware, the highway along the main stretches of road in Barton is already narrow, hence it is not possible to increase the paved area at these locations

3.6 Whilst we understand that parking on the mini-roundabout should not be promoted, we think that double yellow lines here maybe superfluous and the attendant signage certainly detrimental to the conservation area.

The double yellow lines around the roundabout have been included to emphasise that no parking or loading should take place around this roundabout. In keeping with the conservation area, the yellow lines will be narrow (as they already are in other parts of the conservation area). No signage is needed for double yellow lines, however, if loading restrctions are implemented, small signs will be placed on walls or existing lampposts/signposts

3.7 What is the role for the existing traffic crossing patrol? Does this remain unchanged?

The traffic crossing patrol will still be active in the same position

3.8 We are asked to pass comment on whether a raised or a flat mini roundabout is appropriate. We are told that a raised one will slow traffic, but may be noisy and a flat one may be quiet but not slow traffic as much. We feel that a flat one is likely to be ignored as traffic would continue its normal course. If a raised one is likely to be noisy then this is unlikely to be preferred, particularly in the heart of the Conservation Area. The key advantage of either type, however, seems to be the need to slow traffic. We have already suggested that we do not necessarily see that as a problem at school opening and closing times. The County Council has not provided any evidence about present speed levels to assess whether speed is such a problem as to require this mini-roundabout as a solution to this problem.

Raised: it has been proven that a raised roundabout slows traffic down much more than a flat (painted) roundabout due being uncomfortable for the driver/passengers when passing over at high speed; the space around the roundabout will allow for vehicles to avoid the hump when undertaking most manoeuvres, however, due to the deflection created by the central reservations, traffic will be forced to slow down. HGVs that do not manoeuvre correctly may cause noise, which we thus hope will deter HGVs from using the route

Flat: Although traffic will not slow down as much on a flat roundabout, the turning movements here are now, as above, formalised, and traffic will slow down before entering the roundabout to ensure there is no traffic coming from the right. There will be a raised kerb installed on the highway by the memorial in both cases to ensure that vehicles have to deflect when entering the roundabout

3.9 A key issue regarding any traffic features in this location is what impact they may have on the environment and overall streetscape, as this is the central focus of the village and at the heart of the Conservation Area. A key question, is to what extent a roundabout (of whatever variety), with the associated signage and lines, will enhance or deface the environment?

ESBC, as the Planning Authority, have been fully involved with the proposals, and the planning department have been kept fully informed via representatives on the steering group. There are many examples in the country of mini roundabouts being employed successfully in conservation areas without detriment to the area. Also see appendix 2, “Conservation area document”, which states how extra street furniture will be minimised.

3.10 We also note the “Slow” road markings on an anti-skid surface. We would have no objection to this treatment to the highway, notwithstanding our earlier comments about the speed of traffic. Our concern relates to the need to pay particular attention to how anti-skid surfaces are laid. With time, they tend to disintegrate and become pockmarked and uneven in appearance.

Should this occur then we would be concerned about their impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area. Provision should be made for a programme of regular maintenance.

Recommendation

In the absence of any evidence about speeds of traffic to justify such a proposal, we do not see the need for a mini-roundabout and the accompanying double yellow lines and signage in this critical location in the heart of the Conservation Area. We would therefore recommend that the present traffic arrangements are retained.

(4) Creating safer routes to school - Parking Restrictions Thomas Russell Infants School

4.1 It would have been helpful if the diagram, illustrating this proposal, had included the pedestrian crossing, so that we could ascertain the extent of the proposed parking restrictions, as marked by double yellow lines.

4.2 We feel that the imposition of double yellow lines on the south side of Station Road may be unnecessary as the opportunities for parking are limited due to the number of driveways requiring access to the highway.

This proposal has now been discontinued

4.3 We wonder whether part of the congestion problem in this location arises as a result of the school policy of not allowing parents and children within the school grounds before the school actually opens and closes.

Parents (and children) are waiting on relatively narrow pavements and this problem is compounded by parked cars sometimes parked half on the footpath. Allowing parents to, at least, access the school grounds might provide some relief. We would request that this issue be further investigated by Staffordshire County Council, as both highway and educational authority.

4.4 There may also be a danger that by imposing double yellow lines on Station Road, this merely shifts the problem of parked cars and parents dropping off pupils to the side roads. This increases congestion, right turning movements and other awkward manoeuvres.

4.5 This location also lies within the Conservation Area and we therefore see the need for careful attention to the location of signage. We would suggest that this is placed on appropriate walls and buildings or, if necessary, on existing poles, if this is practical, so as to prevent the further clutter of street furniture.

The signage here would be located on the walls bordering Thomas Russell Infants School

4.6 The main problem of parking in this location occurs at school opening and closing times. We do not understand, therefore, why double yellow lines are proposed which have effect on a full time basis. We would suggest that the County Council considers the use of a time limited single yellow line on the northern side of Station Road, mainly because we perceive no particular parking issue outside of school times.

It has been agreed that the parking restrictions will only cover the north side of Station Road, but will still be no parking at any time. Vehicles that may be driving westbound on this road often mount the pavement as they do not see oncoming cars in time due to cars parked on the north side making this into a blind bend. It is technically illegal to park on a bend anyway, and hence the yellow lines here will formalise this. This point has been pushed by the on duty police officers, who often see dangerous situations on this stretch of road

Recommendation

A single time limited single yellow line on the northern side of Station Road is recommended together with the careful siting of attendant signage to take account of the location within the Conservation Area.

The proposal has been changed to still include double yellow lines, but only on the northern side of Station Road. Signage will be located as appropriate to Conservation Areas.

(5) Creating safer routes to school - Parking Restrictions Dunstall Road, north of John Taylor High School

5.1 Our perception, of the problem here, is that, during school hours in term time, students’ cars are parked in a long line on the eastern side of Dunstall Road. A slight curve in the road means that traffic coming from Dunstall has to pull out onto the right hand side of the road in order to pass these parked cars and gain visibility. By the time this manoeuvre has been undertaken, cars may be approaching in the opposite direction. The long line of parked cars makes it difficult for two cars to easily pass each other, often requiring cars to reverse, or mount the verge or footpath. Outside of school time, the level of parking is minimal and traffic flows normally. Once again, the solution to this problem proposed by the County Council is for permanent, fulltime double yellow lines, rather than a school time related solution.

5.2 We would suggest that there are a number of options which we would ask the County Council to test and evaluate:-

- double yellow lines on one side of the road only;

- single time related yellow lines on either one or both sides of the road;

- a small strategically sited restricted parking zone – possibly double yellow lined - on the eastern side of Dunstall Road so as to allow a modicum of parked cars and also to allow cars to pass, in a similar way to what happens on an informal basis at the moment in Main Street.

Recommendation

We would request the County Council to evaluate our proposed options as outlined above.

The proposal has now been amended to be single yellow parking restrictions, 8am-4pm Monday to Friday. It has been investigated as to whether this can be in term-time only: in theory it is a possibility, however the difficulty arises with the traffic wardens knowing what is term-time and what isn’t. The traffic management department at Staffs CC have thus said that it is not possible

due to these difficulties.

(6) Creating safer routes to school Parking Restrictions Efflinch Lane around Thomas Russell Junior School

6.1 In our response to the proposals in other locations, we have generally supported single time limited yellow lines, rather than the more draconian and full-time double yellow lines. Our reasoning is that we do not perceive there to be a parking issue outside of school time. We were therefore surprised to see that such a solution has been put forward for this location. No explanation is given in the leaflet as to why single yellow lines are preferred here and not elsewhere. As a logical consequence of our earlier comments, however, we would generally support this proposal.

6.2 This is not a comprehensive endorsement, however, as we believe that, even with the imposition of parking restrictions, cars will still continue to park on Gilmour Lane and so maintain the existing conflict between pedestrians and cars.

6.3 We would also like to suggest that the County Council investigates, at least, the possibility of allowing the temporary parking of cars at the Marina, allowing parents to walk with their children along Gilmour Lane and into the school from the east.

Recommendation

Whilst we generally support the proposal for a single yellow line along Efflinch Lane, we would request the County Council to consider issues surrounding the continuing conflict of pedestrians and cars along Gilmour Lane.

Following on-site visits during these peak times, and consultation with the Headteacher of Thomas Russell Junior School, it has been agreed to install bollards opposite the parking bays on Gilmour Lane to stop reversing cars almost reversing onto the footway, where the majority of conflict with pedestrians occurs

(7) Creating safer routes to school - General Comments

7.1 We thank the County Council for undertaking this village wide consultation process.

7.2 We are also grateful that the principle that traffic management proposals on Station Road and Main Street affect the village as a whole, rather than just the households in the vicinity of the schools, seems to have been acknowledged.

7.3 Unfortunately, Barton under Needwood Parish Council has not formally received a copy of the leaflet. We can only assume that this is an oversight.

The fact that the Parish Council has not been consulted, however, leads us to request that Staffordshire County Council ensure that the relevant statutory undertakers and East Staffordshire Borough Council, as local planning authority, are all properly and formally consulted.

The Parish Council, through its representative David Sherratt, has been fully consulted since the start of the safer routes to school scheme. Gerry Peck, as Clerk to the Parish Council, has also been included on all emails sent to the steering group regarding the scheme. A copy of the leaflet was sent via email to both these parties before it was printed asking for comments on its layout and content. The leaflet was then posted to every address in Barton-under-Needwood, including the Village Hall. East Staffordshire Borough Council and statutory undertakers have been consulted fully as part of the steering group. Paul Farrer and James Arkesden of ESBC, and the borough councillor Suzan Gent have been involved in the steering group meetings and fully support the proposals

7.4 Unfortunately, the period of time for comment – two weeks – is incredibly short. No explanation has been provided as to why such a short deadline has been imposed. Fortunately, the date of the Parish Council meeting fell within this timescale, but it could easily have fallen foul of the deadline. A six week period is a more acceptable convention. This length of time provides an adequate period for understanding, debate and the gestation of ideas.

The normal timeframe for public comment is 3 weeks. Although the two week timeframe was set, we still allowed the public to respond with their views after this deadline. The fact that we had a 40.6% response rate, high for a postal consultation, shows that the public were happy with this. We have to set a deadline date in order to ensure people do get their responses in within an adequate time frame. The date was set as 6^th March to ensure there is sufficient time to get approval for the works so we are able to do the works during the summer holidays. This includes taking on any comments that have been received and making changes where necessary, gaining statutory approval for the yellow lines; gaining approval for these from highway network management, and giving a 28 days notice period of the works going ahead.

7.5 We feel that the seven questions contained in the tear-off slip are somewhat loaded – who could say “no” to the question about not wanting to reduce congestion, improve health and making roads safer?

All the questions on the response form were vetted by Staffordshire County Council Communications Team and deemed to be satisfactory

7.6 The first of the seven questions refers to the impact of “heavy” traffic in Barton. Our group finds this adjective particularly interesting, as we recently met County Council highways officers to discuss traffic flows in the village. We were told that the levels of traffic on Main Street were significantly below the levels on other B roads throughout the County and that the proportion of heavy vehicles was not problematic. We are, therefore, somewhat confused by these conflicting statements.

7.7 We also feel that the proposals raise complex issues, such that a simple “yes”, “no” response is either unhelpful or inappropriate. The space on the form for additional comments is so limited that we could begin to question whether the County Council is taking this consultation seriously. No encouragement is given for respondents to reply by letter or e-mail, for example.

The public were given the chance to ring SCC representatives via the freephone number on the rear of the leaflet. Several letters were also received and were taken into account, as per the consultation summary already sent to the Parish Council. A consultation leaflet is designed to gain the views of the public being consulted, and a “yes”, “no” response is the best way of doing this, as is done in consultation throughout the country. The response form was a standard size as used by SCC, and the public were very much welcome to submit further comments with free postage if they wanted.

7.8 We were led to believe that this round of consultation would have been accompanied by an exhibition, hopefully accompanied by County Council staff to explain the rationale for the proposals. We are therefore saddened that this opportunity to encourage public debate has not taken place.

As you are now aware, a public exhibition will take place on Monday 20th April at John Taylor High School.

7.9 The proposals contained in the leaflet are starkly presented. No explanation is given as to the reason for specific proposals. No options are presented, or if they were considered, the reasons for rejection. We are left with a “take it or leave it” choice of, for example, double yellow lines or nothing.

Explanations for the proposals are given on the leaflet. The leaflet provides adequate information to allow the public to consider their views, with a freephone number to ring if they require more information. It must be understood that the leaflet should only provide the necessary information – the public will not respond to a consultation leaflet if there is an overload of information

7.10 The diagrams, whilst reasonably clear in presenting the proposals themselves, fail to provide enough detail to assist understanding. Key landmark buildings are presented as blobs, which makes it difficult to consider the extent of specific proposals. It would have been helpful to have had sight of more detailed OS based drawings. The diagrams also fail to indicate the location of additional warning and waiting restriction signs. Inclusion of these on OS based maps would help the understanding any potential impact.

As above, the leaflet is simplified to aid with understanding. The public exhibition will include OS based drawings to show more detail.

7.11 Many of the proposals are located in the Conservation Area. No mention, however, is made of this important planning consideration in the text.

There is no indication that any special attention has been taken of this important designation. Highway schemes, such as this, need to make a positive contribution to preserving and enhancing the Conservation Area. Whilst the proposals will be regarded as “permitted development”, Government guidance as provided by PPG 15 Planning and the Historic Environment (September 1994), advises County Councils to consult the Local Planning Authority on proposals in Conservation Areas.

As stated, the Local Planning Authority has been included fully in the proposals as part of the steering group. The representatives have informed the planning department as to the scheme, who are fully aware of the proposals. A meeting has taken place with an ESBC Planning Officer, who has agreed that the roundabout is permitted development, as long as measures are taken to ensure no more than adequate signage is installed.

7.12 PPG15 also encourages de-cluttering of signs and street furniture and the removal of yellow lines, where appropriate. These specific proposals will bring with them, unfortunately, a proliferation of yet more signage to assist enforcement. There is already an abundance of signs and we would like to work with the County Council so as to reduce as much clutter and minimise

the impact of any new signs in the Conservation Area.

Any new signs will be installed, where possible, on walls and posts already on-site. Please see appendix 2.

7.13 The stated objectives for the initiative are to provide a safer network and encourage cycling and walking. The emphasis in the proposals, however, is on traffic management and parking restrictions. We fail to see how they will encourage cycling and walking. We would like to think that the whole Safer Routes package would include physical measures to encourage cycling and

walking, for example, cycle lanes, if appropriate, and perhaps education and information encouraging cycling and walking. The leaflet makes no reference, for example, to any measures to promote “walking buses”, and adequate, safe and secure cycle parking facilities at schools.

In the original design last year, a cycle path was proposed to be marked out by the war memorial. However, this was discounted due to opposition last year. The roads in the village are too narrow to include cycle ways on the road.

The proposals include a walking bus scheme which is being worked on by SCC Road Safety Unit, including a walking bus from the marina for those children who live outside of the village. Cycling will be encouraged at the Junior School through construction of a cycle shelter to complement the cycle stands already there, and at the High School by discouraging parking by the older pupils These will be included in publicity and newsletters sent to parents of pupils at the school in due course Education on cycling and walking has already taken place at the three schools through SCC’s Road Safety Unit, which also has a member on the steering group.

7.14 The accumulation of the evidence, the short period for consultation, the lack of explanation in the proposals, the “take it or leave it” approach, the lack of encouragement to make detailed representations, leads us to think that, the comments about the Safer Routes to School programme, working in partnership with the community, may be merely empty rhetoric.

I refer you to appendix 1, attached to the end of this document, which states the roles of the members of the steering group, in particular:

“Local representatives

� act as a link with community (Communication Channel) publicising the progress”

7.15 Whilst we accept the need to undertake some form of traffic management proposals in the short term, we believe that in the long term, a solution to the congestion caused by the John Taylor School, at least, is by the creation of a coach dropping-off and turning area in the vicinity of the BT telephone exchange on Station Road. Together with an accompanying footpath into the school from this location, we believe that many of the current congestion and parking problems will be resolved.

It was agreed at the recent steering group meeting that were this access road to be constructed, it would solve many problems. However, there has been no firm commitment from the quarry regarding the time frame of extension.

In the steering group meeting it was stated that the Parish Council had queried whether the current proposals could be put on hold until the outcome of the quarry was known. It was mentioned that it was so far only a concept, and hence may not happen within the next two years. All agreed that something needs to be done to make routes safer for children as soon as possible.

The steering group agreed that it supported this proposal. However, as there is uncertainty to the possibility of the quarry development going ahead, through factors out of the Highways Department’s control, it also agreed that we need to carry on pushing the current proposals.

(8) Conclusions and the way forward

8.1 In the light of the Parish Council’s earlier criticism of last year’s limited consultation, we would like to thank the County Council for responding to these concerns and undertaking this full scale and village-wide consultation exercise.

8.2 This time round, however, we believe that the quality and the content of the consultation leave a lot to be desired. We are reluctant to be critical as we appreciate the need to get on and do something, but we cannot willingly give our approval to proposals which we believe to be ill-thought through.

8.3 We believe that the consultation process has been somewhat half hearted, lacking in justification for the specific proposals and any explanation as to how they might meet the stated objectives. There has been a paucity of publicly available background information to help understand how the County Council has developed these ideas.

8.4 We are also concerned at the apparent cavalier attitude to the Conservation Area designation, affecting the location of many of the proposals. Even though traffic management proposals are treated as “permitted development”, this does not negate the need for proposals to demonstrate how they will positively enhance and preserve this special area.

8.5 Despite the criticisms, we wish to remain positive and work pro-actively with the County Council. We would therefore like to request that the County Council seriously considers the comments made in this report and that they investigate and evaluate the recommendations and the further options we have proposed.

8.6 We would then like to suggest that the Parish Council (or appointed representatives) meet with the Steering Group and relevant County Council highway officers to try and devise a preferred course of action. If at all possible, time should be allowed for some form of public exhibition of any revised proposals, attended by County Council officers. We know that this approach may upset the timetable for implementation before the start of the next academic year, particularly as we are aware that Traffic Regulation Orders will also need to be advertised and approved. But we believe that it is better to get things right rather than to rush proposals for the sake of a self imposed timetable. We are willing to play our part in proceeding with all reasonable speed, so as to permit the implementation as soon as practically possible.

A member of the Parish Council (David Sherratt) already sits on the steering group and has been liaising with the highway officers on the proposals.

A public exhibition will take place on Monday 20th April at John Taylor High School.

Transport and Environment sub-committee February 2009

Appendix 1 - EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF STEERING GROUP MEETING 1, 26TH APRIL 2007

The role of the Steering Group and each member is as follows:

As a whole group

� confirm and discuss problem areas,

� suggest and discuss solutions,

� share specialist knowledge of area (Local knowledge)

� take part in publicising the aims, objectives and measures (Public boards, school paper)

School representatives (could be Head Teacher, Parent Governor, Member of staff)

� act as link between Steering Group and pupils/parents

� to confirm problem areas identified in the school surveys and suggest suitable solutions that are likely to change student / pupil travel modes.

� To take part in publicity, bringing parents, pupils up to date with scheme progress

� To take advantage of the available education work

Action: Head Teachers to inform pupils and parents of the aims, objectives and progress of the scheme possibly via their school newsletter or monthly publications.

Local representatives

� act as a link with community (Communication Channel) publicising the progress Engineer

� guide the Steering Group through the SRS process

� recommend engineering solutions for the identified problem areas advise on technical matters

Emergency Services – Police, Ambulance Service and Fire & Rescue Service

� As a high priority user have an input into the design of the engineering measures Road Safety and Sustainable Travel Unit

� Will help promote alternative travel options and provide education work in the schools.

� Offer assistance where needed for the writing of School Travel Plans

TOP

Consultation Summary – Safer Routes to School Scheme, Barton-under-Needwood

Over the past twenty years the number of children being driven to school has increased four-fold. For many villages like Barton congestion is now common at peak times, creating hazards and inconvenience for everyone.

Our “Safer Routes to School” programme works in partnership with communities to create safer networks to and from schools to encourage children to give up the car and walk or cycle instead.

Barton has three schools – Thomas Russell Infants School, Thomas Russell Junior School and John Taylor High School. In the Safe Routes to School surveys conducted, parents and pupils identified six areas of concern: Station Road; Main Street; Dunstall Road; Efflinch Lane; Wales Lane and Gilmour Lane.

The Barton “Safer Routes” steering group consists of head teachers from the three schools, the police, local councilors and the county council’s Education Road Safety Officer. It found that, out of about three hundred people questioned living around the six roads, 79% would support engineering measures like new zebra crossings and parking restrictions to help ease the congestion.

Following the installation of a Zebra Crossing on Station Street in 2008, the steering group would like to see four main changes made to Barton’s Roads.

These are:

• Construction of a mini roundabout at the junction of Dunstall Road and Main Street

• Parking restrictions (no waiting or loading at any time) on Station Road outside Thomas Russell Infants School

• Parking restrictions (no waiting or loading at any time) on Dunstall Road close to John Taylor High School

• Parking restrictions (no waiting Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 9:30am and 2:30pm to 4:00pm) on Efflinch Lane around Thomas Russell Junior School

On 20th/21st February 2009 the consultation leaflet titled “Making Barton-under-Needwood safer for all” was received by every house and property in Barton-under-Needwood highlighting these changes. The leaflets included a response leaflet regarding the proposals, with space for people to make comments.

A total of 1869 leaflets were sent out to every house and property in Barton-under-Needwood. The deadline date for the response leaflet was set as Friday 6th March 2009. However, responses received after this date were still taken into account.

This paper summarises the responses received, along with comments made. It is purely factual, highlighting the percentages agreeing to/disagreeing with the proposals, along with a summary of the comments and letters received.

John Heelham, Staffordshire County Council, 20th March 09

Consultation Leaflet responses

The total number of responses received totals 759 – a response rate of 40.6%, which is high compared to the national average of around 28%.

It should be noted that not all of the responses received had answered every question, hence why the number of responses may not add up.

Q1: Do you agree that during school opening and closing times, the heavy traffic through Barton is dangerous for children and their parents?

• 740 responses – 94% for; 6% against

Q2: Do you support the proposal to install a mini roundabout at the junction of Dunstall Road with Main Street?

• 744 responses – 66% for; 34% against

Q3: If so, would you prefer that the roundabout were:

a. Raised b. Flat

• 507 responses – 76% raised; 24% flat

Q4: Do you support waiting restrictions outside Thomas Russell Infants School?

• 739 responses – 93% for; 7% against

Q5: Do you support waiting restrictions on Dunstall Road near John Taylor High School?

• 740 responses – 91% for; 9% against

Q6: Do you support waiting restrictions on Efflinch Lane outside Thomas Russell Junior School?

• 737 responses – 91% for, 9% against

Q7: Do you agree that children and parents should be encouraged to walk/cycle to school to improve their health, reduce congestion and make the roads safer?

• 745 responses – 99% for; 1% against

Comments on response forms

62% of the responses received also had comments attached. A summary of these is shown in the table below:

COMMENT Number.

Suggestion

Ban HGV's/Impose Weight restriction 89

Problem may move elsewhere 55

Roundabout dangerous/unsightly/not necessary 47

Car parking in village needs to be improved 29

Access road/car park at rear of telephone exchange 20

20mph speed limit 16

Parents and children should walk to school where possible 16

Sixth formers need set parking 15

Enforcement of limits/restrictions needed 15

Park and stride/walking bus 14

Speed cameras 10

Parents are main problem 10

Speed humps 9

Waiting restrictions will cause traffic to speed up (dangerous) 9

Traffic lights needed as well/instead of roundabout 6

Pedestrian crossing needed 6

Coaches cause problems on Efflinch Lane

(speeding/ignoring restrictions) 6

Parents for TRJS should park at Holland Sports club and walk from there 4

Zebra/pedestrian crossing by Shoulder of Mutton pub 4

Roundabout will destroy aesthetics 4

Bypass needed 3

Remove chicanes at village entrance 3

Stagger school opening times 2

Speed limit signs needed 2

Waiting restrictions imposed during school hours 2

Free bus passes for sixth formers 2

Restrict HGV's passing through during school hours 2

Need somewhere to store thing such as sports wear/instruments at JTHS 2

Enforce 30mph speed limit 1

Improve footpaths 1

Parking Restrictions needed:

On Short Lane at the junction with Efflinch Lane 19

On Church Lane and St James Road junction with Main Street 17

Further up Efflinch Lane towards the Station Road junction 11

More of Station Road/full length of. 9

at the Wales Lane/Main Street junction 7

Between Holland Park and Efflinch Lane 4

Further down Dunstall Road 3

On the Green at the Captains Lane junction 3

Further up Dunstall road 2

The lines on Dunstall Road should be peak only 7

The lines on Station Road should be peak only 6

Speed Cameras on Captains Lane 2

Efflinch Lane 2

Upper Main Street 1

Letters received

Seventeen letters were also received regarding the consultation and scheme – summaries of these letters are shown below:

LETTER A

• Proposals fail to address number of problems (steering group focused on quick fix)

• Supports mini roundabout – it will improve traffic flow

• Issues with proposal 2, 3, 4. Would like to know how Parking Restrictions will increase safety and realise other key objectives

• Wants to know accident/incident/injury stats for past ten years and how many of these are attributable to current road scheme.

• Wants access to any public info/documents used by SCC and steering group so far

LETTER B

• Questions leading and simplistic on tear off form

• Little progress has been made by SRTS group –lack of interest?

• Traffic congestion occurs during school times and whilst congestion occurs, the slow movement of traffic reduce safety concerns somewhat, so difficult to say whether dangerous or not.

• Why has SCC flier called traffic ‘heavy’ when meeting between Parish Council and Charles Soutar/Clive Thomson resulted in being told traffic was of no concern?

• Roundabout not a good idea, what will it achieve? It will only change traffic priorities and discourage walking/cycling amongst pupils. It will also impact on visual environment in the conservation area.

• Double yellows are excessive at points mentioned on Q. 4 & 5 as problem only occurs school days at particular times. Single yellows would be enough.

LETTER C

• Parking restrictions are of merit but will only move parking problems to other areas such as Short Lane (route used by emergency services).

• Restrictions at infant school will move problems to Meadow Rise and Holland Park areas causing problems for residents

• Dunstall Rd restrictions will create parking problems in old people’s complex in Palmers Close, however double yellow lines are too draconian and should be single with the same time bans as in Efflinch Lane.

• Why should older residents suffer from problem caused by schools and SRTS?

• “Island” is nonsense and will destroy visual aspect of historical part of village – it is pointless as several months of year there is no school traffic

• Putting 20 m.p.h limit would slow down traffic

• Or, as asked previously by Civic soc President Dr W Taylor, removal of double lines in Main Street and allowing parking – would make HGV’s think twice before using village as short cut!

• Police and CPSO’s not allowed to give parking tickets – who would police these restricted areas?

• Whole exercise not thought through properly and could have been solved in a less costly and more simplistic manner.

LETTER D

• Don’t support mini roundabout, it wouldn’t ease traffic and would be an eyesore (and noisy if raised).

• Parking restrictions outside Shoulder-O-M extending to Church lane is a good idea but should be single yellow with limits of Mon-Fri 08:30-09:30 and 3:00-4:00pm. Village properties in this area without drives need somewhere to park. Should be outside their homes.

• Double yellows on Station Rd is good idea as this is dangerous bend

• Should also single yellow line Station Rd on opposite side of road from pedestrian Crossing to beyond the right hand turning to the unmade private road Cricket Lane. This should also have restrictions 8:30-9:00 and 2:30-3:30 as HGV’s regularly mount pavements when kids/parents walking to and from school.

• Also Cricket Road would also need to be marked as Private Road Residents only to avoid being used as pick up/drop off.

• Single yellows on Efflinch Lane seem appropriate

• Double yellows on Dunstall Road seem draconian, should be single yellows with restrictions on school arrival and departure times.

LETTER E

Option 1

• HGVs will drive over whatever sort of roundabout

• Extended yellow lines on Main Street would stop occupants of flats in Palmer House parking near their property.

Option 2

• Yellow lines would stop occupants of several cottages which have no off road parking from parking by property

Option 3

• Last time parking in Dunstall Rd was banned they parked in all side streets causing issues including emergency vehicle access

Option 4

• Most days only 3 or 4 cars park there – most go down Potters way to drop off.

• In ten years I have lived here almost all incidents involve HGV’s either causing slow traffic or mounting pavements.

• Proposals have good intentions but outlay will be large when compared with stopping HGV’s coming through the village.

• Those travelling from outside to school need somewhere to park, what are they meant to do?

• HGV’s should be using A50 not Barton.

LETTER F

• Highways should institute HGV weight limit

• Raised mini roundabout would cause to standing passengers on buses particularly the elderly

• Yellow lines should extend beyond Meadow Rise as far as Post Box.

• Extend lines into Short Lane and beyond the junction along Efflinch towards the Police House

LETTER G

• A designated parking area should be built behind the houses in Station

Road in which traffic going to JTHS from A38 should be diverted to. (Then walk to school)

• Another entrance to this site could be made via turn off from Dunstall Road into same parking area (which is private land but couldn’t an agreement be made?)

• This would eliminate heavy coach/car traffic

• Weight limit all traffic

LETTER H

• Traffic only dangerous if drivers don’t follow H/W code

• Roundabout will serve no purpose – have there been any accidents here? You are proposing to let a minor role take precedence over a major one. Where will cars in this area park if d/yellows extended or introduced.

• Parking restrictions will force people to park elsewhere. If single or double yellows introduced near infants school it will force people to park in the already congested Holland Park and Meadow Rise.

• Station Rd often has solid line of cars for 200yds parked up – if yellow lines introduced they would be forced up Meadow Rise/Holland Park.

• There is a lot of bad parking – need to be prosecuted.

• Pupils park on Dunstall Rd, if d/yellows introduced where will they park? Many come from out of village so can’t walk.

• Efflinch Lane restrictions will result in people parking elsewhere e.g. Short Lane

• Children will need secure areas to ‘park’ cycles, and some sort of supervision crossing Station Road and Main Street

• Rumble strips won’t work, 20 m.p.h would be better but must be enforced.

• Create separate entrance to JTHS by the phone exchange as would stop school traffic coming through village.

• Parking spaces should be created within school grounds.

• If the above 3 arrangements were adopted busses should be banned from using Efflinch Lane

• Slow marking on red anti-skid surface complete waste of money.

LETTER I

• Parking restrictions will move problem to other already congested areas. Request parking restrictions across points of access to residential properties similar to that in Dunstall Rd.

• Reducing small vehicle traffic will only encourage juggernauts. We request measures that limit/restrict large commercial vehicles using this route.

LETTER J

• Since pedestrian crossing was put in by Thomas Russell Infants School the traffic is even more built up than before.

• Cars parked in Dunstall Rd are also a problem. I am a carer to residents here so need to get to clients and meet their needs to a strict time scale.

LETTER K

• Your suggestions on how to solve problem only tinker around the edge of the issues.

• HGV’s and lorries are main problem, if you enforce a weight limit which is enforced this will solve three parts of the problem.

• Mini roundabout will only make existing problems with cars and HGV’s worse rather than better

• Barton needs more parking not less.

LETTER L

• Q1 is a loaded question.

• Do not support min-roundabout. Need to give pedestrians more pavement not less. This would be detrimental to heart of village.

• Q4,5,+6 I do support parking restrictions but single yellows would be more appropriate than doubles. No on parks in Station Rd at night. Signs need to be located on near walls. Where are proposals for Wales Lane?

• Would like to see proposals and variety of different options for Safer Routes to School walking and cycling.

• Wants an exhibition

LETTER M

• What measures are in place to cut down on HGV’s as they add to congestions at peak times.

• Roundabout terrible idea. Priority should be given to traffic travelling up and down Main St. D/yellows should be implemented along Station Rd. Do not agree with yellow lines along Efflinch Lane. Problems in Efflinch caused by congestion at junction with Main St largely because of coaches coming from both directions.

• Should stagger school opening times to ease traffic.

• Infant school doesn’t actually open its gates to pupils until 8:50 so cars are parked for longer than needed followed by sudden movement.

• Businesses cannot afford to lose more parking on main Street and Dunstall Rd

• 8:50 best time to carry out observation.

LETTER N

• Fully support essence of scheme

• Worried that lot of money being spent on limited outcome

• Waiting restrictions may move cars onto side roads

• Would like to see waiting restrictions on Main Street between Meadow Rise and St James Road as suffers bad congestion and cars/HGV’s mounting pavements.

• Appreciate efforts, but how many members of steering group actually walk these routes to school?

LETTER O

• Improved flow of traffic may encourage speeding, need 20mph limit. Why is this not in place?

• Main roads and pavements very thin so HGV’s and lorries regularly mount pavement to pass each other, why has an HGV ban not been put in place?

• How would processes outlined be enforced?

• The above suggestions are simple cheap ideas that could save a life if used in conjunction with your plans

LETTER P

• No roundabout, provide parking for school traffic elsewhere and keep this area as it is.

• Station Road. NO, unless Holland Park and Meadow Rise are protected from school traffic. If parking and walking bus is provided then double yellow lines should be installed but extended to outside No. 75. Also double yellow lines west side of Meadow Rise should be extended for the extent of the vision splay.

• Dunstall Road, extend lines another 100 metres

• Efflinch Lane, lines should be double with no waiting time.

• Before any implementation takes place wardens must be restricted to the major town centres of Burton and Uttoxeter and the police have their powers reinstated. Without enforcement measures will be negated.

• Copies sent to Insp. Darren Harding, Highways Lichfield, Burton Mail, Grays Inn.

LETTER Q

• Disappointing to see no mention in proposals of idea put forward in two public meetings of drop off/parking point in Station Rd (behind telephone exchange). This had total support at a large public meeting last year.

• Concerned new officer in charge of problem are ignoring public opinion

• Wants all previous correspondence to be included in deliberations

• Toned down parking plans will not solve issue and simply shift it elsewhere

• Totally opposed to mini roundabout and will do all we can to prevent its construction.

• Congestion is only during two short periods a day and roundabout will be 24hr blot.

• If this public consultation had been carried out in earlier stages we would have saved a lot of taxpayers money. However this doesn’t seem to be any concern of ‘the powers that be’ in Stafford.

• Awaiting further communications

Petition

SCC has also been in receipt of a petition letter – 81 of these were received

20/03/09

TOP