Agenda item - Church Road, South Portslade - Traffic & Road Safety Improvements

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

 

1)        That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee approves the interim provision of a School Crossing Patrol in the section of Church Road between St Michael’s Road and St Peter’s Road, subject to appropriate Health & Safety at Work requirements being  met.

 

2)        That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee approves the implementation of traffic signs, road markings and road surface materials to support the interim School Crossing Patrol facility.

 

3)        That a report setting out the legal, financial and safety implications of a pedestrian crossing facility at the junction of Church Road and St Peters Road be considered at the next Committee meeting to be held on 25 November 2014.

 

43.1      The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Environment, Development & Housing that summarised the additional surveys, analysis and public consultation carried out in response to a request for a pedestrian crossing located at the junction of Church Road and St Peters Road and requested authorisation for proposals to overcome the concerns of parents and residents using Church Road, South Portslade.

 

43.2      Councillor Robins noted that legal advice had been circulated advising Members that should they make a decision without the relevant information before them within a report, accepting the amended recommendation could potentially open the council to legal challenge should there be an accident related to the proposed new crossing. Councillor Robins enquired whether that advice had been provided with due consideration to the fact there was already a pedestrian refuge and dropped kerb at the location proposed for the crossing and that the amendment was seeking to formalise that.

 

43.3      The Deputy Head Law clarified that the advice was provided on the basis of comments from the Road Safety Manager whose comments included concerns regarding the proposed location. The Deputy Head of Law added that her advice was that if the Committee made a decision that was contrary to council policy, guidance set out by the DfT and advice from the Road Safety Manager, the council would be exposed to legal risk should there be an accident at the location proposed for a crossing.

 

43.4      Councillor Daniel commented that she felt it would be difficult to prove shared negligence with the council in the hypothetical scenario that a driver drove dangerously causing an accident at the proposed crossing location.

 

43.5      The Deputy Head Law stated that she would advise against that comment as the meeting was not only held in public, webcast and minuted, the council as a public body was expected to act reasonably and rationally including adhering to DfT guidance.

 

43.6      Councillor Mitchell stated that two years before, the council had installed a pedestrian refuge and dropped kerb at the location that a formal crossing was now desired. Councillor Mitchell stated that in doing so, the council had encouraged pedestrians to that point to cross the road and therefore she believed it would be reasonable and rational to formalise that into a pedestrian crossing.

 

43.7      On behalf of the Labour & Co-operative Group, Councillor Robins formally moved a motion to add a new recommendation 2.2 and to delete recommendations 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 as shown in bold italics below:

 

2.1       That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee notes the growing concerns of parents and local residents and the results of the additional analysis of crossing behaviour undertaken by officers, as described in this report.  

 

2.2    That a pedestrian crossing facility is located on Church Road between the junctions with St. Peter’s Road and North Street

 

2.2       That, in acknowledgement that the technical criteria for a formal Zebra crossing facility is met in the section of road immediately south of St Andrew’s Road, the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee authorises officers to include this site in the Pedestrian Crossing Assessment & Priority Listing for 2014/15 and recommends that the site should be closely monitored.

 

2.3       That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee approves the interim provision of a School Crossing Patrol in the section of Church Road between St Michael’s Road and St Peter’s Road, subject to appropriate Health & Safety at Work requirements being  met.

 

2.4       That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee approves the implementation of traffic signs, road markings and road surface materials to support the interim School Crossing Patrol facility.

 

43.8      Introducing the amendment, Councillor Robins stated that the location had been used as a crossing for nearly fifty years and the area had undergone significant developments in that period. Councillor Robins stated that the crossing was fundamentally for use by children and a decision was long overdue. The proposal had the support of parents and the community at large as well as the local parliamentary candidate.

 

43.9      The motion was formally seconded by Councillor Mitchell.

 

43.10   Councillor Theobald enquired why the Road Safety Manger had provided advice not to install a crossing at the desired location and the point that appeared to be used the most by local people and instead recommended a location further to the north.

 

43.11   The Road Safety Manager stated that DfT guidance recommended that crossings be placed in locations that attract the most pedestrians. Assessments had been made of the junction of North Street and St Peter’s Road and it had been found that footfall in this area was very low compared to other locations along Church Road. The recommendation proposed was concerned with the location that had sufficient demand and also provided an interim measure of a school crossing patrol to assess whether demand at the junction of Church Road and St Peter’s Road would increase. If demand did significantly increase at that location, and it could be statistically proven that the crossing patrol had changed behaviours of crossings along Church Road, that would provide a basis of justification in the future to provide a formal pedestrian crossing. The Road Safety Manager added it was his view that it was currently a high risk to install a crossing at the desired location, a view that was determined by the level of use not the current facilities.

 

43.12   The Chair enquired whether the Road Safety Manager also had concerns about the width of the pavement at the desired location.

 

43.13   The Road Safety Manager stated that there were challenges to pavement space all along Church Road and significant physical measures would be required to provide sufficient space for pedestrians to wait at a crossing.

 

43.14   Councillor Mitchell asked if the survey conducted had shown peaks at school opening and closure times.

 

43.15   The Road Safety Manager stated that the survey was conducted over a twelve hour period from 7am to 7pm. From the data, the four highest hours were taken then averaged to create a value that provided clarification on level of risk.

 

43.16   Councillor Mitchell stated that she would assume that the highest level of risk for this area would be during school opening and closing times due to the proximity of the school and higher levels of traffic.

 

43.17   The Road Safety Manager confirmed that the North Street junction was predominately used for two hours of the day and that was by parents and children at school opening and closing times. Parents and children were also crossing further up the road as were pedestrians accessing shops in the location.

 

43.18   Councillor Cox asked if the amendment was passed, but for a legal reason was not installed, would that result in no crossing being provided at all.

 

43.19   The Deputy Head of Law stated that it was her understanding that any crossing required the approval and sign-off of the Road Safety Manager.

 

43.20   The Road Safety Manager clarified that there was a requirement of the road safety professional to authorise installations of crossing and he currently would not be in a positon to do so with the level of risk as higher as it was.

 

43.21   Councillor Davey noted that he understood crossings had to be assessed by an independent road safety auditor. Councillor Davey asked whether this could be confirmed and whether a crossing at the proposed location would pass that audit.

 

43.22   The Road Safety Manager confirmed that the safety of proposed crossings were assessed and audited by an independent auditor at the preliminary design, detail design and construction stages. The Road Safety Manager stated that it was his view that the independent auditors would request information on the need for a crossing and would likely determine that there was a lack of safety and need at this stage.

 

43.23   Councillor Daniel noted that she believed some of the language used may well be baffling to a layperson and something that had caused an element of confusion. In addition, Councillor Daniel asked if the expansion of the school would represent a significant change in circumstances and impact upon demand.

 

43.24   The Road Safety Manager stated that an expansion of the school and growth of use associated with the location would increase the viability of the location linked to demand.

 

43.25   Councillor Janio asked for clarification from the Road Safety Manager that it was his professional view that placing a formal crossing at the proposed location would increase the risk to schoolchildren.

 

43.26   The Road Safety Manager confirmed that it was his view on the basis of an assessment of the information gathered that placing a pedestrian crossing at that location would increase risk to all road users. The Road Safety Manager added that DfT guidance stipulated that wherever a crossing was placed there was a potential risk for accidents to occur.

 

43.27   Councillor Janio referred to the previous item (Pedestrian Crossing Priority) that detailed the criteria for assessment of pedestrian crossing requests and noted that he could find no reference within that report to crossing requests having low demand.

 

43.28   The Road Safety Manager stated that the assessments were a two stage process. The first stage considered the numbers of vehicles and pedestrians using the location and if that assessment was deemed high risk then the location was moved to the second stage that considered other factors.

 

43.29   Councillor Robins stated that at a public meeting where it was promised a crossing would be put in at the location proposed. Councillor Robins noted his frustration at the amount of time taken to handle the request and the frequent appeals for further time. Councillor Robins added that he could not understand why a pedestrian refuge and dropped kerb had been placed at the location if it had been deemed unsafe to direct pedestrians to that location.

 

43.30   The Road Safety Manager clarified that no promises had been made at the public meeting held although assurance was given that a recommendation would be presented to committee the issue and that road safety officers were aware that demand was too low in the specified area to justify a crossing.

 

43.31   The Chair asked for further legal clarification on the proposed amendment to the recommendations.

 

43.32   The Deputy Head of Law clarified that the recommendation 2.2 of the proposed amendment would require fully costed financial and legal implications to adhere with council procedures on decision making.

 

43.33   Councillor Janio stated that it appeared the Committee did not have the full information before them in order to make a decision and suggested deferring the report to the next meeting.

 

43.34   Councillor Robins asked if the report would purely be focussed on the viability of a crossing at the junction of Church Road and St Peter’s Road and not in any other location.

 

43.35   The Executive Director, Environment, Development & Housing stated that the report would set out to the committee the legal, financial and safety issues of a pedestrian crossing at the junction of Church Road and St Peter’s Road or elsewhere on Church Road.

 

43.36   Councillor Robins asked that if that particular element of the report was to be deferred, he believed that the interim measures proposed of the provision of a School Crossing Patrol and implementation of traffic signs, road markings and road surface materials should still go ahead.

 

43.37   The Chair then moved a motion to approve recommendation 2.3 and 2.4 to the vote.

 

43.38   The motion was carried.

 

43.39   The Chair then moved a motion to request a report to the next Committee that set out the legal, financial and safety implications of a pedestrian crossing facility at the junction of Church Road and St Peters Road.

 

43.40   The motion was carried.

 

43.41   RESOLVED-

 

1)           That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee approves the interim provision of a School Crossing Patrol in the section of Church Road between St Michael’s Road and St Peter’s Road, subject to appropriate Health & Safety at Work requirements being  met.

 

2)           That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee approves the implementation of traffic signs, road markings and road surface materials to support the interim School Crossing Patrol facility.

 

3)           That a report setting out the legal, financial and safety implications of a pedestrian crossing facility at the junction of Church Road and St Peters Road be considered at the next Committee meeting to be held on 25 November 2014.