Agenda item - Dyke Road ped & cycle facilities: Objections to TRO

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

Dyke Road ped & cycle facilities: Objections to TRO

Report of the Executive Director of Environment, Development & Housing (copy to follow).

 

Decision:

The report was deferred to the 29 April 2014 Committee meeting

Minutes:

90.1         The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Environment, Development & Housing that set out the comments and objections to the draft TRO associated with the introduction of pedestrian and cycle facilities at Dyke Road between the junctions of the Upper Drive and Old Shoreham Road.

 

90.2         Councillor Sykes asked if a public safety risk assessment had been conducted.

 

90.3         The Principal Transport Planning Officer confirmed that an additional independent assessment had been conducted in response to the concerns raised in the TRO process. The results were listed at appendix two of the report.

 

90.4         Councillor Davey asked for clarification on safety audit process in scheme development.

 

90.5         The Principal Transport Planner clarified that all schemes were subject to an independent road safety audit and road safety was assessed at the initial design stage, the detail design stage, upon implementation with a further road safety audit conducted one year after implementation. The Principal Transport Planner added that a number of organisations conducted road safety audits and transport planners were trained in that area to a qualified standard. The Principal Transport Planner added that the independent road safety audit in this specific case had identified that there was no definitive safety argument for either a zebra or pelican crossing.

 

90.6         The Road Safety Manager added that the council’s own internal research had found that there were no grounds to conclude that a zebra crossing was more or less safe than a zebra crossing.

 

90.7         Councillor Theobald asked if consideration had been given to separating the proposed cycle lane from the pavement.

 

90.8         The Principal Transport Planner stated that this option had been considered after being raised with the council by the Dyke Road SOS group.

 

90.9         The Chair stated that the plans had already been agreed by the Committee at their last meeting and this report was to consider the objections to the draft TRO associated with those plans.

 

90.10    Councillor Janio stated that different crossings were more suited to different locations.

 

90.11    The Principal Transport Planner acknowledged that pelican crossings worked in the Dyke Road area however, the proposals were a holistic examination of the Dyke Road corridor seeking to promote pedestrian priority and to reduce vehicle dominance and for that function, and zebra crossings were preferential over pelican crossings.

 

90.12    Councillor Mitchell stated that it was clear from the representations made by parents and residents from Dyke Road that they wished for the pelican crossings to be retained and the Committee should not go against that wish. Councillor Mitchell added that the scheme as proposed had not sufficiently dealt with competing priorities in the area, the design was not to a high enough standard and on that basis, the Labour & Co-operative Group could not support the proposals.

 

90.13    Councillor Theobald stated that he was not content with the proposals, specifically the replacement of pelican crossings with zebra crossings, the removal of guard railing and the shared cycle and pedestrian path that he felt should be separated. Councillor Theobald added that he believed these three core issues should be re-examined and a report be brought back to Committee.

 

90.14    Councillor Cox stated that he believed it was essential that a cycle route be included in the proposals as many children were using the route to travel to school by that method.

 

90.15    Councillor Janio stated that whilst he support the expansion of cycle lanes and the potential linkage with other routes in this specific proposal, he felt that all parties had reached entrenched positions and the issue need to be re-considered and brought back to Committee.

 

90.16    Councillor Davey stated that it was council officers as technical experts to design projects and it was unusual for Members to involve themselves in instructing on the specific detail of those designs.

 

90.17    Councillor Hamilton stated that he felt there were many issues that required resolution and the report should be deferred.

 

90.18    Councillor Robins stated that the proposals did not appear sufficiently thorough enough and the report should be deferred to resolve the issues aforementioned.

 

90.19    Councillor Theobald stated that he felt any subsequent report should retain the current crossings and guardrails and alternative options for the cycle lane be considered.

 

90.20    Councillor Mitchell stated her agreement with the comments made by Councillor Theobald.

 

90.21    The Chair moved a motion to defer the report which was passed.

 

90.22    RESOVLED- That the report be deferred.

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints