|
Subject: |
Old Shoreham Road Cycle Lane - Items referred from the Special Council meeting held on the 13 August 2020 |
|||
|
Date of Meeting: |
29 September 2020 |
|||
|
Report of: |
Executive Lead Officer for Strategy, Governance & Law |
|||
|
Contact Officer: |
Name: |
Mark Wall |
Tel: |
01273 291006 |
|
|
E-mail: |
|||
|
Wards Affected: |
All |
|
||
FOR GENERAL RELEASE
1. SUMMARY AND POLICY CONTEXT:
1.1 To receive the following petitions for consideration which were debated at and referred from the Special Council meeting held on the 13 August 2020.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.1 That the petition calling for the temporary cycle along Old Shoreham Road to be removed be noted;
2.2 That the petition calling for the temporary cycle lane along Old Shoreham Road to be made permanent and an city-wide cycle network established be noted.
3.
CONTEXT /
BACKGROND INFORMATION
3.1 The petitions are detailed below:
(i) REmove old shoreham road cycle lane extension
The extension of the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane was announced on the evening of Thursday May 7th, 2020 for implementation by Sunday 10th May 2020.
This was implemented without reference to the ETS committee, nor all the affected councillors, and without any consultation with the electorate, or any transport groups (other than Sustrans).
It does not meet the government's criteria for a "Covid Cycle Lane" as there is little public transport using this section of road.
Since its introduction the use by cyclists is minimal, mainly as a result of the route being hilly and not linking anywhere of any real interest. The remaining single lane used for other traffic is seeing increasing traffic and subsequent congestion at junctions as government “lock down” restrictions are relaxed.
It seems there has been no active monitoring of traffic flows in the Old Shoreham Road or in adjoining roads, nor any measurement of emission levels to identify whether or not this is a net improvement to the local environment.
This petition requests that the council removes the temporary cycle lane extension from the Old Shoreham Road between The Drive and Hangleton Road and does not reinstate it until a full planning review and consultation with all affected parties (including residents) is performed.
Lead Petitioner – Peter Challis
(ii) MAke old shoreham road cycle lane permanent and establish a city-wide cycle network
Around 30% of households in the city do not have a car. Given current advice to avoid public transport, walking and cycling are obvious options. With the reduced traffic in lockdown, there has been a huge rise in the number of people cycling but many people who wish to cycle feel unsafe doing so in dense, fast-moving traffic, such as that found on the Old Shoreham Road. The solution to this is segregated cycle lanes.
Cities that have invested in cycle networks, such as Copenhagen, have seen a big rise in cycling and a drop in car use. This means that streets are less congested, the air is cleaner and people who have no alternative but to use a car can get about more quickly and easily. Although isolated cycle lanes on key roads are better than nothing, we will not see a large shift from car to bicycle use until there is a full network.
Lead Petitioner – Chris Williams
3.2 An extract from the minutes of the special council meeting held on the 13 August 2020 is detailed below setting out the petition and recommendations for the committee to consider:
SPECIAL Council
4.30pm 13 August 2020
Virtual Meeting - Skype
MINUTES
|
Present: Councillors Robins (Chair), Mears (Deputy Chair), Allcock, Appich, Atkinson, Bagaeen, Barnett, Brennan, Childs, Clare, Deane, Druitt, Evans, Fishleigh, Fowler, Gibson, Hamilton, Heley, Hill, Hills, Hugh-Jones, Janio, Knight, Lewry, Littman, Lloyd, Mac Cafferty, McNair, Miller, Moonan, Nemeth, Nield, O'Quinn, Osborne, Peltzer Dunn, Phillips, Pissaridou, Platts, Powell, Shanks, C Theobald, Wares, West, Wilkinson and Williams
|
PART ONE
32 pETITIONS FOR DEBATE.
(3) (i) REmove old shoreham ROAD cycle lane extension
(ii) MAKE OLD SHOREHAM ROAD CYCLE LANE PERMANENT AND ESTABLSIH A CITY-WIDE CYCLE NETWORK
32.1 The Mayor stated that where a petition secured 1,250 or more signatures it could be debated at the council meeting. He had been made aware of six such petitions and would take each in turn, although those relating to Madeira Drive and Old Shoreham Road would be taken in one debate as there were petitions in favour and against the proposals.
32.2 He noted that there were amendments to the cover reports’ recommendations for the first petition, the second and third petitions which would be taken as part of the debate on the matter in question.
32.39 The Mayor then invited Councillor Atkinson to present the petition on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Challis which called for removal of the temporary cycle lane along Old Shoreham Road.
32.40 Councillor Atkinson thanked the Mayor and stated that the petition requesting the removal of the temporary cycle lane had over 4,400 signatures. The extension to the cycle lane had been made with little planning and no consultation and with little consideration of the impact for local residents and road users. There was a need to base the decision on traffic data and traffic modelling and no such information was available, but it was clear that the closure of one lane had had an impact on traffic flow, tradesmen and local businesses. Whilst there was a need for cycle lanes to encourage people to cycle and to have an alternative option, these needed to be in the right place and should not cause major traffic problems. As such the temporary cycle lane should be removed.
32.41 The Mayor thanked Councillor Atkinson and invited Mr. Williams to present his petition calling for the temporary cycle lane along Old Shoreham Road to be made permanent.
32.42 Mr. Williams thanked the Mayor and stated that 5,135 people had signed the petition and stated that there had not been any consultation to install the dual carriageway and remove part of the local neighbourhood at the time. It was, however, possible to control traffic and tackle health and social inequalities and to make streets safe for all forms of transport. The Government’s drive was to encourage more people to cycle and yet many of the roads in the city including those with schools were unsafe for cyclists. There was a clear need to look at the situation and to find ways to improve the cycle network across the city and make cycling a safe alternative to using the car.
32.43 The Mayor thanked Mr. Williams and invited Councillor West as Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee to respond to the petitions.
32.44 Councillor West thanked the petitioners for presenting their petitions. Clearly the situation with Covid has raised challenges in dealing with the pandemic and having been specifically asked by Government to take action to improve transport facilities to enable people to return to work and school, we have implemented changes. The council is getting significant funding from the Government for this and changes are temporary at this point and a report will come back to the committee in September. Any proposals to make permanent changes would need to be taken through the appropriate design and consultation process. In regard to the Conservative amendment that is going to be put forward, the request cannot be met and therefore it cannot be supported. There is a need for more facilities across the city such as this and as the opportunity to use them increases with more people returning to work it will be clear that they are necessary and important if the issue of congestion is to be addressed in the city.
32.45 Councillor Lewry moved an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Group and stated that the temporary cycle lane was putting people’s lives at risk and creating traffic jams which added to pollution levels. He believed there was need to improve traffic flows in the city and to create an interconnected transport policy. He was an avid cyclist but could not support the continuation of the temporary cycle lane and called for the reinstatement of the dual carriageway to prevent lives from being put at risk.
32.46 Councillor Barnett formally seconded the amendment and stated the decision to create the temporary cycle lane had been taken without any consultation with residents or ward councillors. The impact on traffic had been disastrous with queues of traffic for miles and had created safety issues for everyone trying to access the recycling centre. She hoped that the situation could be reviewed, and the lane removed so that the road could be returned to how it was and wishes of the local residents acknowledged.
32.47 Councillor Wilkinson welcomed both petitions and stated that he felt they should be considered at the next Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee meeting as that meeting was due to receive a report on the use of cycle lanes etc. He stated that the Labour Group would not be supporting the amendment and that there was a need to take positive action to improve the city’s economic and environment recovery and to reduce carbon emissions. The introduction of temporary cycle lanes across the city was one measure to help to address this and to achieve safe and clean transport options for the city.
32.48 Councillor Janio stated that one the schools returned the overall situation would become worst with more congestion and an increased risk of accidents unless the cycle lane was removed. He hoped that the right decision would be reached, and the cycle lane taken out as soon as possible.
32.49 Councillor Atkinson stated that it was clear that the introduction of the cycle lane had led to an increase in congestion and was not being used by that many cyclists because it was not safe. Having been installed with little consultation, they were in the wrong place and further consideration needed to be given to where in the city these temporary lanes would be effective. He noted that recently Greater Manchester had been forced remove similar temporary lanes that had been created in response the pandemic but without proper consideration of how they would work and their impact on the area and traffic flow. He had received an overwhelming number of complaints in regard to the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane and hoped that it could be reviewed as soon as possible.
32.50 Councillor Lloyd welcomed the petitions and noted that the level of cycling on the temporary cycle lane had increased by 61% which had to contribute to a reduction in air pollution in the area. The decisions to introduce the temporary lanes had been made because of the Government’s desire to enable people to travel safely during the pandemic and this had to be accepted. There was a clear need for the cycle lane along the Old Shoreham Road and it was time to start looking at how the council can reduce car use in the city and reduce air pollution levels.
32.51 Councillor Fishleigh stated that she would like to see more money spent on maintaining the current cycle lanes and ensuring they were safe to use.
32.52 The Mayor thanked the petitioners for joining the meeting and presenting their petitions and noted that the amendment had not been accepted and he would therefore need to put it to the vote.
32.53 The Mayor also noted that a request for a recorded vote on both the amendment and the subsequent recommendation had been made and he therefore asked the Head of Democratic Services to undertake a recorded vote on the Conservative amendment.
32.54 A recorded vote was then undertaken.
Note: Due to technical difficulties and some Members being unable to register their vote, the Mayor called an adjournment at 19.45pm for fifteen minutes and reconvened the meeting at 20.00pm.
32.55 The Mayor reconvened the meeting and noted that those Members who had not been able to confirm their vote had done so either orally or via the instant messaging facility.
32.56 The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that the vote had been completed and that the amendment had been lost by 12 votes to 33.
|
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
1 |
Allcock |
|
x |
|
28 |
Lewry |
√ |
|
|
|
2 |
Appich |
|
x |
|
29 |
Littman |
|
x |
|
|
3 |
Atkinson |
|
x |
|
30 |
Lloyd |
|
x |
|
|
4 |
Bagaeen |
√ |
|
|
31 |
MacCafferty |
|
x |
|
|
5 |
Barnett |
√ |
|
|
32 |
Mcnair |
√ |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Not present |
33 |
Mears |
√ |
|
|
||
|
7 |
Brennan |
|
x |
|
34 |
Miller |
√ |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Not present |
35 |
Moonan |
|
x |
|
||
|
9 |
Childs |
|
x |
|
36 |
Nemeth |
√ |
|
|
|
10 |
Clare |
|
x |
|
37 |
Nield |
|
x |
|
|
11 |
|
Not present |
38 |
O’Quinn |
|
x |
|
||
|
12 |
Deane |
|
x |
|
39 |
Osborne |
|
x |
|
|
13 |
Druitt |
|
x |
|
40 |
Peltzer Dunn |
√ |
|
|
|
14 |
Gibson |
|
x |
|
41 |
Phillips |
|
x |
|
|
15 |
|
Not present |
42 |
Pissaridou |
|
x |
|
||
|
16 |
|
Not present |
43 |
Powell |
|
x |
|
||
|
17 |
Evans |
|
x |
|
44 |
Platts |
|
x |
|
|
18 |
Fishleigh |
√ |
|
|
45 |
|
Not present |
||
|
19 |
Fowler |
|
x |
|
46 |
Robins |
|
x |
|
|
20 |
Hamilton |
|
x |
|
47 |
Shanks |
|
x |
|
|
21 |
Heley |
|
x |
|
48 |
|
Not present |
||
|
22 |
|
Not present |
49 |
Theobald C |
√ |
|
|
||
|
23 |
Hill |
|
x |
|
50 |
Wares |
√ |
|
|
|
24 |
Hills |
|
x |
|
51 |
Wilkinson |
|
x |
|
|
25 |
Hugh-Jones |
|
x |
|
52 |
Williams |
|
x |
|
|
26 |
Janio |
√ |
|
|
53 |
West |
|
x |
|
|
27 |
Knight |
|
x |
|
54 |
|
Not present |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
12 |
33 |
|
32.57 The Mayor noted that the request for a recorded vote on the recommendation to refer the petitions to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee had been withdrawn. He therefore moved to a vote on the recommendation and called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members.
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the recommendation and this was confirmed by the Green Group Members;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the recommendation and this was confirmed by the Labour Group Members;
Councillor Wares stated that the Conservative were in favour of the recommendation and this was confirmed by the Conservative Group Members;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting for the recommendation,
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting for the recommendation;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting for the recommendation;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting for the recommendation.
32.58 The Mayor confirmed that the recommendation to note the petitions and refer them to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee had been carried.
32.59 RESOLVED: That the petitions be noted and referred to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee for consideration.