Meeting documents
Highways Committee (DCC)
Wednesday 12 December 2007
Meeting: Highways Committee (County Hall, Durham - Committee Room 2 - 12/12/2007 10:00:00 AM)
Item: A3 Installation of Traffic Island, C38 North End
Item No 3
| Consideration of Installation of Traffic Island, C38 North End, Sedgefield |  |
| |
1.0 Purpose of the Report
1.1 To consider the installation of a traffic island in the village of Sedgefield and to advise Members of one objection to the scheme (see attached plans).
2.0 Background
2.1 The request for a traffic island within the village of Sedgefield originated from the Town Council and the Sedgefield Village Residents Forum. The identified location was selected as the carriageway is at its widest at this point. This location will also provide pedestrians with a direct crossing facility near to the local conveniences. It should be noted that the County Council has received requests in the past from local residents for improved crossing facilities within the village. 2.2 Funding for the proposed crossing will be provided from Councillor John Robinson’s Members Allowance and the LTP2 Sedgefield Road Safety budget.
2.3 There have been 12 recorded accidents on the C38 North End from its junction with Rectory Row to its junction with The Lane in the last 10 years. Of these 12 accidents, 1 was classified as a serious injury and the remaining 11 accidents were classified as slight injuries. It should be noted that four of these accidents involved pedestrians. However, none of these are at the location of the refuge.
2.4 A No Waiting At Any Time restriction exists on the eastern side of the C38 adjacent to the location of the proposed works. No restrictions currently exist on the western side of the road in the vicinity of the works. The construction of the pedestrian refuge island would result in the loss of 2 parking spaces on the western side of the C38. It should also be noted that the properties on the eastern side of the C38 do not have any off road parking provision.
2.5 Sedgefield Town Council and Sedgefield Village Residents Forum are in full support of the proposed works.
2.6 Durham Constabulary have been consulted and have offered no objections to the proposed works.
2.7 A consultation exercise for this proposal was undertaken on 3 September 2007. Letters were sent to the 15 properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works. Objections from numbers 6 and 8 North End were received at this time. It should be noted, however, that number 8 North End has since withdrawn their objection.
3.0 Current Situation
3.1 The single remaining objection to this scheme has been submitted by the resident of 6 North End, Sedgefield. This report is to provide Members with relevant information to make a decision with regard to this objection.
4.0 Objection from the resident of 6 North End, Sedgefield
4.1 This resident has objected to the proposed works and has stated a number of reasons to his objection.
4.2 He has stated the loss of two parking spaces as one of the major reasons to the objection. He has a disabled partner who has limited mobility and as a result, when possible, they prefer to park opposite their property.
4.4 He has also suggested the location of traffic lights on the junction of North End and High Street.
Response
5.0 Local Member Consultation
5.1 County Councillor John Robinson is in support of the provision of a
pedestrian refuge island at this location. 6.0 Summary
6.1 As previously noted, the County Council has received requests for a crossing facility on the C38 near to the Hardwick Arms within the village of Sedgefield. It is anticipated that the provision of a refuge as a formal crossing point at this location would greatly assist residents, visitors and school children in crossing the main road through the village. Past experience has also shown that traffic islands and their associated road markings can also act as an effective traffic calming measure and can reduce vehicular speeds.
7.0 Recommendations and Reasons 7.1 Members are RECOMMENDED to endorse the proposal to set aside the objection and proceed with the scheme as proposed.
Background Papers
Correspondence in Office File.
Copies of correspondence have been placed in the Members’ Resource Centre.
Local Government Reorganisation
(Does the decision impact upon a future Unitary Council?)
None
Finance
Local Members Allowance and LTP
Staffing
None
Equality and Diversity
None
Accommodation
None
Crime and disorder
None
Sustainability
Encourages walking
Human rights
None
Localities and Rurality
As detailed in report
Young people
Safe route to school
Consultation
As detailed in report
Health
None
Attachments
1.1 To consider the installation of a traffic island in the village of Sedgefield and to advise Members of one objection to the scheme (see attached plans).
2.0 Background
2.1 The request for a traffic island within the village of Sedgefield originated from the Town Council and the Sedgefield Village Residents Forum. The identified location was selected as the carriageway is at its widest at this point. This location will also provide pedestrians with a direct crossing facility near to the local conveniences. It should be noted that the County Council has received requests in the past from local residents for improved crossing facilities within the village. 2.2 Funding for the proposed crossing will be provided from Councillor John Robinson’s Members Allowance and the LTP2 Sedgefield Road Safety budget.
2.3 There have been 12 recorded accidents on the C38 North End from its junction with Rectory Row to its junction with The Lane in the last 10 years. Of these 12 accidents, 1 was classified as a serious injury and the remaining 11 accidents were classified as slight injuries. It should be noted that four of these accidents involved pedestrians. However, none of these are at the location of the refuge.
2.4 A No Waiting At Any Time restriction exists on the eastern side of the C38 adjacent to the location of the proposed works. No restrictions currently exist on the western side of the road in the vicinity of the works. The construction of the pedestrian refuge island would result in the loss of 2 parking spaces on the western side of the C38. It should also be noted that the properties on the eastern side of the C38 do not have any off road parking provision.
2.5 Sedgefield Town Council and Sedgefield Village Residents Forum are in full support of the proposed works.
2.6 Durham Constabulary have been consulted and have offered no objections to the proposed works.
2.7 A consultation exercise for this proposal was undertaken on 3 September 2007. Letters were sent to the 15 properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works. Objections from numbers 6 and 8 North End were received at this time. It should be noted, however, that number 8 North End has since withdrawn their objection.
3.0 Current Situation
3.1 The single remaining objection to this scheme has been submitted by the resident of 6 North End, Sedgefield. This report is to provide Members with relevant information to make a decision with regard to this objection.
4.0 Objection from the resident of 6 North End, Sedgefield
4.1 This resident has objected to the proposed works and has stated a number of reasons to his objection.
4.2 He has stated the loss of two parking spaces as one of the major reasons to the objection. He has a disabled partner who has limited mobility and as a result, when possible, they prefer to park opposite their property.
Response
This area is adopted highway and as such parking is based on a first come first served basis, it is not guaranteed that even if the island wasn’t installed that a parking space opposite their property would be available. The property is approximately 20 metres away from the proposed island. It should be noted that the no waiting at any time restriction fronting his property permits the picking up and setting down of passengers.
4.3 He has requested residents only parking opposite his property as a compromise for the installation of the island.This area is adopted highway and as such parking is based on a first come first served basis, it is not guaranteed that even if the island wasn’t installed that a parking space opposite their property would be available. The property is approximately 20 metres away from the proposed island. It should be noted that the no waiting at any time restriction fronting his property permits the picking up and setting down of passengers.
Response
He has been informed that Durham County Council currently do not provide such facilities on the public highway outside of the ‘controlled zone’ operated within Durham City.
He has been informed that Durham County Council currently do not provide such facilities on the public highway outside of the ‘controlled zone’ operated within Durham City.
4.4 He has also suggested the location of traffic lights on the junction of North End and High Street.
Response
The junction itself has a relatively good accident record and the siting of traffic lights could potentially increase accidents at this particular location.
5.0 Local Member Consultation
5.1 County Councillor John Robinson is in support of the provision of a
pedestrian refuge island at this location. 6.0 Summary
6.1 As previously noted, the County Council has received requests for a crossing facility on the C38 near to the Hardwick Arms within the village of Sedgefield. It is anticipated that the provision of a refuge as a formal crossing point at this location would greatly assist residents, visitors and school children in crossing the main road through the village. Past experience has also shown that traffic islands and their associated road markings can also act as an effective traffic calming measure and can reduce vehicular speeds.
7.0 Recommendations and Reasons 7.1 Members are RECOMMENDED to endorse the proposal to set aside the objection and proceed with the scheme as proposed.
Background Papers
Correspondence in Office File.
Copies of correspondence have been placed in the Members’ Resource Centre.
| Contact: Stephen Jones Tel: 01388 602028 |
| Appendix 1: Implications |
Local Government Reorganisation
(Does the decision impact upon a future Unitary Council?)
None
Finance
Local Members Allowance and LTP
Staffing
None
Equality and Diversity
None
Accommodation
None
Crime and disorder
None
Sustainability
Encourages walking
Human rights
None
Localities and Rurality
As detailed in report
Young people
Safe route to school
Consultation
As detailed in report
Health
None
Attachments
Item 3.pdf