Agenda item

The Committee considered a report Corporate Director of Regeneration, Economy & Growth advise Members of the changes to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in Aycliffe and requested Members to consider the objections made during the informal and formal consultation period (for copy see file of minutes).

The Traffic Management Section Manager gave a detailed presentation which included site location plans, aerial photos and photographs of the sites and details of the following restrictions;

·        To introduce ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions on both sides of the carriageway at Greenfield Way, adjacent to Greenfield School Community and Arts College to address obstructive parking and improve visibility and traffic flow for both road users and pedestrians. One objection had been received from Greenfield School Community and Arts College during the informal consultation.

·        To introduce ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions on both sides of the carriageway adjacent to Tekmar Energy. The proposals were to address obstructive parking and improve accessibility for the affected business. One objection had been received from Sabre Rail during the informal consultation.

·        To introduce ‘restricted waiting and loading Monday-Friday, 8-9am, 3-4pm’ on the south side of Humphrey Close for the local residents and Woodham Burn Community Primary School. To amend the layout of the existing school keep clear markings (no stopping Monday-Friday, 8am-6pm) around the access to Woodham Burn Community Primary School.

·        To introduce a ‘Disabled Badge Holders Only’ bay at the access to Woodham Burn Community Primary School. These proposals were to address obstructive parking and road safety concerns during peak school times, and to improve access to residents’ properties as well as Woodham Burn Community Primary School. One objection had been received from a local resident at the informal consultation stage. A representation, signed by 17 residents, opposed to the scheme was received during the formal consultation stage.

·        To introduce ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions on both sides of the junction from Well House Drive to Woodham Way. The proposals were to address obstructive parking, to improve accessibility and visibility for both road users and pedestrians. One objection had been received from a local resident at the informal consultation stage.

·        To introduce ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions on both sides of the access roads to Newton Park Services extending from the junction with the A167. The proposals were to address obstructive parking, road safety concerns and improve traffic flow in this location. One objection had been received from a local business at the informal consultation stage.

·        To introduce ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions to cover the extent of the Royal Mail Sorting Office in line with current planning conditions. The proposals were to address road safety concerns and improve traffic flow in this location. Two objections had been received from local businesses at the informal consultation stage.

Councillor Bell referred to the large number of objections to the proposal on Greenfield Way and asked if there had been any support from local residents.  The Traffic Management Section Manager advised that the restrictions had been requested by residents and supported by local members.  The Civil Engineering Technician added that a number of residents had requested the restrictions via contact with local members.

The Traffic Management Section Manager confirmed that ballot cards were sent out with what was essentially a tick box exercise and acknowledged that the information would be useful for the Committee to consider in future reports.

Councillor Bell commented that the Committee had to rely on local members and the Traffic Management Section Manager advised that people who were in favour did not tend to comment on applications.

Councillor Boyes referred to Newton Park Services and the HGV parking facility that was closed at the time of consultation and asked whether any further investigative work had been done since it reopened to see whether HGV’s were still parking on the access road.  The Civil Engineering Technician advised that no work had been done since it reopened but there were significant issues when it was requested, prior to the closure of the petrol station.  The Traffic Management Section Manager advised that the access road was slightly closer than the alternative parking which was unfortunately closed when the survey was done, however a routine had been established it would usually continue so the proposal would address those road safety concerns.

The Chair queried whether going ahead with the proposal would impact traffing queuing for the drive through and disperse cars onto the A167 and the Traffic Management Section Manager advised that queuing vehicles were not classed as parked vehicles so there was very little that could be done about that, however the police could close business down if they were having a road safety impact.

Councillor Boyes asked whether there was any cumulative impact with regards to the proximity of proposals and was disappointed that there were no local members who were aware of the areas and able to put residents’ representations forward.  The Traffic Management Section Manager confirmed that in this instance, they were not in close proximity but going forward he acknowledged it would be helpful to show a plan with all of the schemes.

The Chair commented that local members had indicated support for the proposal but it was difficult as the application covered three wards.

Mr D Priestly addressed the Committee on behalf of Greenfield Community College having been concerned about safety on Greenfield Way between 2.45pm and 3.30pm on school days for twenty years.  The photograph shown was of queuing cars which he had heard were not affected by double yellow lines and he suggested that they were queuing to pick up children rather than parked.

Mr Priestly continued that over the years he had requested and been declined the following road safety features;

·        Speed limit reduction from 40mph, asked for a 20mp exit restriction

·        Removal of the no right turn island

·        Pedestrian crossing

He welcomed the interest to make this a safer road and some additional lines would assist in enforcing a safe exit from the school.  He continued that Greenfield School was the only building on Grrenfield Way that actually had access an access road from Greenfield Way.

Mr Priestly advised that a minimum of 6-8 staff were deployed between 2.45pm and 3.30pm to ensure children used the underpass, although they did not like to use the underpass as they did not feel safe.  It was important to recognise that children being picked up who had to queue and wait for buses leave the site, before they could drive in, were mainly children with SEND or high levels of anxiety who needed to be collected from the site.

He referred to the current system which had been devised in conjunction with local police a few years ago and consisted of queuing on one side of the road – he would welcome double yellow lines on the opposite side of the road.  The exit strategy was supervised every night and Mr Priestly was concerned that if this scheme was approved in its entirety, some parents would park deeper in estate and jeopardise the relationship between the school and local residents, or put children with extreme needs at higher risk or even result in looking at alternative schools.  His only objection was where do those people who needed to pick up their children go, if they were unable to pick up outside of the school.

The Traffic Management Section Manager advised that vehicles were able stop and allow passengers boarding and this included accompanying children and vulnerable adults and therefore should not affect those mentioned.

Councillor Bell queried the time of the restrictions and asked whether it would be sufficient and accord with the schools hours.  The Traffic Management Section Manager advised that the timing of the school would have been considered but this would be rechecked. 

The Major Projects Team Leader confirmed that was a location which had been affected for a number of years and the school, Town Council and Durham Constabulary had been consulted to develop the proposal.

The recommendation to approve was moved by Councillor Wilson and seconded by Councillor Higgins.

Resolved

That the proposal in principle to proceed with the implementation of

the Newton Aycliffe Parking and Waiting Restrictions Order 2021 be endorsed.