To: Members of the Traffic Committee Diana Terris Chief Executive

Councillors: Chair – B Brinksman Deputy Chair – S Roberts B Axcell, B Lines-Rowlands, L Hoyle, T McCarthy, S Parish

31 May 2012

Traffic Committee – Agenda Tuesday, 12 June 2012 at 6:30pm

Council Chamber, Town Hall, Sankey Street, Warrington Agenda prepared by Julie Pickles, Democratic and Member Services Officer – Telephone: (01925) 443212, Fax: (01925) 656278, E-mail: jpickles@warrington.gov.uk

A G E N D A Part 1 Items during the consideration of which the meeting is expected to be open to members of the public (including the press) subject to any statutory right of exclusion. Item

1. Apologies To receive any apologies for absence

Town Hall Sankey Street

Warrington WA1 1UH

mailto:jpickles@warrington.gov.uk

Item Page Number

2. Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any personal or prejudicial interest that they have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when the item is reached.

3. Minutes To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 1 November 2011 as a correct record.

1

4. The Borough of Warrington (Traffic Management) (Civil Enforcement) (Amendment No. 49) Consolidation Order 2011 Report of the Executive Director of Environment and Regeneration Services.

7

Part 2 Items of a "confidential or other special nature" during which it is likely that the meeting will not be open to the public and press as there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972.

NIL If you would like this information provided in another language or format, including large print, Braille, audio or British Sign Language, please call 01925 443322 or ask at the reception desk in Contact Warrington, Horsemarket Street, Warrington.

Agenda Item 3

TRAFFIC COMMITTEE

12 JUNE 2012

Present: Councillor B Brinksman (Chairman) Councillors B Axcell, B Lines-Rowlands, T Higgins (Substituted for S Parish), L Hoyle, T McCarthy and S Roberts

T 1 Apologies Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor S Parish. T 2 Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest received. T 3 Minutes Resolved,

That the minutes of the meeting held on 1st November 2011 be confirmed and signed as a correct record by the Chair.

T 4 The Borough of Warrington (Traffic Management)(Civil

Enforcement) (Amendment No 49) Consolidation Order 2011) The Committee received a report of the Executive Director of Environment and Regeneration. The purpose of the report was to consider four objections to proposals to introduce road safety measures on Pepper Street, Lymm in the vicinity of Ravenbank Primary School. The proposed road safety measures are made up of: a prohibition of waiting at all times, No stopping on School Keep Clear markings (Monday to Friday 8am to 5pm) and limited waiting bays (Monday to Friday, 7am to 6pm, 20 minutes, no return within 40 minutes). The measures would be implemented through the introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order. In response to the statutory advertisement, the Committee were advised that four objections had been received relating to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order. Of the four objectors, one attended the meeting and spoke to the Committee. The objector who attended reiterated that if the “keep clear” markings were extended to 8.30am and 4.30pm this would significantly assist parents and residents. The committee questioned officers on the limitations of the restriction hours and were advised that whilst there is no legal reason why an 8.30 and 4.30 restriction could not apply and 8am – 5pm restriction would promote

Agenda Item 3

consistency across the borough, thus reducing any confusion amongst drivers. Resolved,

That the Committee approve the introduction of the Borough of Warrington (Traffic Management) (Civil Enforcement) (Amendment No 49) Consolidation Order 2011 as advertised and detailed on the reports attached plan ER/TMS/JE/TRO/430.

Signed ………….………………….

Dated………………………………

Agenda Item 3

TRAFFIC COMMITTEE

1 NOVEMBER 2011

Present: Councillor B Brinksman (Chairman) Councillors B Axcell, D Earl, T Higgins (Substituted for T McCarthy), L Hoyle, S Parish and S Roberts

T 6 Apologies Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor T McCarthy. T 7 Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest received. T 8 Minutes Resolved,

That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2011 be confirmed and signed as a correct record by the Chair (with the inclusion of an amendment - to remove Councillor D Earl’s name from the list of attendees).

T 9 The Borough of Warrington (Arley Road, Appleton Thorn)

(Restricted Road) Order 2011 The Committee received a report of the Assistant Director, Transportation, Engineering and Operations. The purpose of the report was to consider the merits of objections received to the Borough of Warrington (Arley Road, Appleton Thorn) (Restricted Road) Order 2011 to extend the existing 30mph speed limit on Arley Road. It was reported that the Department for Transport had published new guidance on setting local speed limits on 8 August 2006, this included guidance on the provision and use of 30mph speed limits and as part of the report it was recommended that 30mph speed limits be introduced to all villages. In addition to the above, a local police officer along with other concerned parents whose children attended Appleton Thorn Primary School contacted the Borough Council with a petition highlighting their various safety concerns in relation to Arley Road; it also recommended a series of improvements. The first recommendation regarding school warning signage situated too far from the school had been assessed by the Borough Councils Traffic Management team who confirmed their concerns, it was noted that remedial works had been ordered and that these works had now been completed.

Agenda Item 3

The second recommendation for ‘School Keep Clear’ markings on the road adjacent to the school had been assessed by the Borough Councils Traffic Management team, the results identified that there was no evidence to suggest that vehicles were parking around the entrance / exits points and therefore there was no justification for the introduction of these road markings. A request for a zebra crossing had been assessed as part of the Borough Councils pedestrian crossing assessment 2011/2012. The results detailed that the appropriate intervention level for providing such a crossing had not been met, however the request would be kept on file and included in the 3 year rolling review of requests. Further investigations into Arley Road highlighted the existing speed change from the national speed limit to 30mph; this change in speed was situated on the boundary of the residential area and was approximately 100 metres from the Primary School. It was proposed that by extending the 30mph speed limit 220 metres to the south east would encourage motorists to reduce their speed prior to reaching the residential area, this would also allow targeted enforcement of the speed limit in the vicinity of the school. In response to the statutory advertisement, the Committee were advised that 2 objections had been received on the grounds that the 30mph speed limit should not be extended and that the existing extents of the 30mph be replaced with a 20mph speed limit. Both objectors had been informed that the provision of 20mph speed limits in isolation and over a short length was not effective or sustainable in terms of speed or collision reduction. This had been evidenced through the report on the ‘Effectiveness of 20mph Zones outside Schools’ presented to the Sustainable Communities and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 1 November 2005. Resolved,

That the Committee approve the introduction of the Borough of Warrington (Arley Road, Appleton Thorn) (Restricted Road) Order 2011 as advertised and detailed on the reports attached plan (Drawing No. ENV/TC/TRO439/02)

T10 The Borough of Warrington (Weaste Lane, Thelwall) (Restricted Road) Order 2011

The Committee received a report of the Assistant Director, Transportation, Engineering and Operations. The purpose of the report was to consider the merits of objections received to the Borough of Warrington (Weaste Lane, Thelwall) (Restricted Road) Order 2011 to extend the existing 30mph speed limit on Weaste Lane. It was reported that the Department for Transport had published new guidance on setting local speed limits on 8 August 2006, this included

Agenda Item 3

guidance on the provision and use of 30mph speed limits and as part of the report it was recommended that 30mph speed limits be introduced to all villages. Initially, local residents of Weaste Lane had contacted the Borough Council with regard to the safety of the road due to high vehicle speeds, it was noted that investigations revealed that the existing 30mph speed limit terminated to the national speed limit within the area of Weaste Lane which could encourage higher than average vehicle speeds. It was proposed that by extending the existing 30mph speed limit in an easterly direction by 334 metres this would encourage motorists to reduce their speed prior to reaching the residential area and this would also allow conformity with the Department for Transport guidance. In response to the statutory advertisement, the Committee were advised that 2 letters of support and 1 letter of objection had been received. The objector who had attended the meeting and addressed the Committee, raised several issues orally and in writing with regard to the necessity and cost involved to extend the speed limit based on several factors, namely the collision history of Weaste Lane, the assumption that to provide a 30mph speed limit would also require the construction of a footpath with street lighting at significant cost and additionally, that the creation of an 30mph speed limit would make it easier for landowners to obtain infill housing planning permission. The objector requested that the funds be spent on footway maintenance due to the existing poor condition on Weaste Lane. The objector was informed that the decision to extend the 30mph despite the lack of collisions along the length of Weaste Lane was taken in relation to standardising speed limits and acting proactively to improve road safety. The objector had been informed of the reasons why it was not necessary to provide additional footways or street lighting for the length of the proposed extension. It was also confirmed that the granting of infill housing planning permission would not be affected by speed limit extension. It was noted that the objector had been informed that the existing poor footpath condition had been reported to the relevant highway inspector and that the results of the inspection would be forwarded to him. Resolved,

That the Committee approve the introduction of the Borough of Warrington (Weaste Lane, Thelwall) (Restricted Road) Order 2011 as advertised and detailed on the reports attached plan (Drawing No. ENV/TC/TRO438/02)

T11 Applications for Definitive Map Modification Orders – Alleged

footpaths running over Land bounded by Orford Road, Birchwood Way, Eric Avenue and Railway embankment and Blackbrook Avenue, Poulton with Fearnhead

Agenda Item 3

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director, Environment and Regeneration. The purpose of the report was to consider applications to record footpaths in the Definitive Rights of Way Map and Statement. It was reported that on 26 June 2011 the Council received applications under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the addition of 3 footpaths to the definitive rights of way map and statement. The applicant had certified that landowners and occupiers had been notified. Despite enquiries being made, the landowner of part of the passageway near Eric Avenue was unknown, permission had been granted for the applicant to erect notices on the land to advise the owner. The application was based on statutory presumed dedication of a right of way by long uninterrupted, unchallenged use of the ways by the public or dedication in common law, this was evidenced by unchallenged public use for less than the statutory period. One of the alleged footpaths (Route 1), ran from near the junction of Birchwood Way and Orford Road east north easterly to Poulton with Fearnhead footpath no.8 near the Iron Bridge over the railway. The second (Route 2) followed the same route until diverting off it in the vicinity of the Iron Bridge and continuing in the same direction to Poulton with Fearnhead footpath no.10 near the pavilion at the Bennett Recreation Ground. The third (Route 3) ran from Eric Avenue between nos. 28 and 30 in a north westerly direction under a railway bridge and along a roadway to join with Routes 1 & 2 at a “T” junction. The Council has received 13 user evidence forms in support of Route 1, 17 forms in support of Route 2 and 16 forms in support of Route 3. It was noted that the application was in response to the obstruction of all three ways by a land owner, immediately prior, by means of bulldozed earth and brushwood banks on Routes 1, 2 and 3 plus locked and blocked gates on the Eric Avenue access on Route 3. Poulton with Fearnhead Parish Council had agreed that routes that crossed their owned or tenanted land should be recorded as a public right of way based on evidence of long, continuous and unchallenged public use. An agent for a major land owner whose land the routes crossed had advised that after taking advice from leading Counsel an objection would be made. Although no specific grounds had been raised, reference had been made to the number of witnesses and the continuity of their use over a 20 year period. The Committee considered that the evidence in support of a presumed dedication under Highways Act 1980 Section 31 for Routes 1, 2 and 3 and, dedication under Common Law for parts of Routes 1 and 2 was sufficient to show that a public right of way on foot subsists over the three claimed routes.

Agenda Item 3

Resolved,

That the Committee approve the applications to modify the Definitive Rights of Way Map and Statement by adding footpaths as detailed in the reports attached plans (Drawing Nos. ER/JT/DMMO/Po1/2011, ER/JT/DMMO/Po2/2011 and ER/JT/DMMO/Po3/2011), and that the Head of Legal Services be authorised to make the necessary legal Orders under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

T12 Proposed Private Street Works – Footpath between Dale Lane and Witherwin Avenue, Appleton Warrington

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director, Environment and Regeneration. The purpose of the report was to seek permission to execute private street works to an unadopted unmade path used by the general public which currently was not constructed to the satisfaction of the street works authority. The whole of the works costs would be funded via the South Area Board LTP funding allocation. It was reported that the South Area Community Capacity and Transportation Working Group had funds made available to them for suitable schemes within the transportation theme of the LPT3 block. Members of the Working Group had been invited to suggest schemes that would provide benefit to the public in South Warrington. The Group had identified an unmade footpath route with local strategic importance, connecting two separate residential housing areas to a local school, via a side entrance, adjacent to the school playing fields. The path had a high level of usage but remained unmade, this was due to it being on land of unknown ownership, the South Area Board agreed that the route should be made up to an adoptable standard. The Working Group had promoted the scheme accordingly, to improve its use for existing users and promote sustainable transportation to and from the local communities and the school. It was noted that to overcome any possible issues in respect of improving and adopting a footpath on private land, the Council could impose provisions contained within Section 205 of the Highways Act 1980, The State Works Code, which states that where a private street (or in the case of a path) is not to the satisfaction of the Street Works Authority, the Authority may resolve in respect to the street (path), to execute street works and, subject to the code that governs this process, allows costs incurred to be apportioned to frontage landowners accordingly. The cost apportionment powers contained within the code were deemed inappropriate in this instance as there were no frontages other than Broomfields Junior School. It was therefore considered that a further Committee resolution, issued under the terms of Section 236 of the Highway Act 1980, confirms that the Street Works Authority would bear the whole of the expenses occurred, removing liabilities of others to fund the works.

Agenda Item 3

Resolved,

That the Committee approve the Private Street Works to allow an unadopted unmade path running between Dale Lane and Witherwin Avenue to be made up to adoptable standards for the use of the general public and that all associated costs be claimed from the LTP3 funding allocation

Signed ………….………………….

Dated………………………………

Agenda Item 4

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE Report of the: Executive Director of Environment and Regeneration

Directorate Report Author: Joanne Evans Contact Details: Email Address:

Jevans1@warrington.gov.uk Telephone: 01925 443415

Ward Members:

Bob Barr, Ian Marks and Sheila Woodyatt

1. The Borough of Warrington (Traffic Management) (Civil Enforcement) (Amendment No. 49) Consolidation Order 2011

2.

Purpose of the Report: To consider four objections to proposals to introduce road safety measures on Pepper Street, Lymm in the vicinity of Ravenbank Primary School. The proposed road safety measures are made up of; a prohibition of waiting at all times, No stopping on School Keep Clear markings (Monday to Friday 8am to 5pm) and limited waiting bays (Monday to Friday, 7am to 6pm, 20 minutes, no return within 40 minutes). The measures would be implemented through the introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order.

3. Recommendations: It is recommended that the Committee approve the proposals as originally advertised.

4. Confidential or Exempt: N/A

5. Financial Considerations: Subject to the Traffic Committee’s resolution, the associated works will be funded from a section 106 agreement

6. Risk Assessment: Low

7. Consultation: Ward members and all other interested parties have been consulted as part of the statutory order making process.

Agenda Item 4

1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Pepper Street is a single carriageway no through road leading from Lymm Village

centre and provides access to a large residential area, Naturegarten nursery and Ravenbank Primary School.

1.2 The improvement work that has recently been carried out to Ravenbank School

has resulted in an increase in pupil capacity. Current traffic conditions on Pepper Street, within the area fronting the school are extremely busy due to the large number of children and pupils dropped off / picked up at Ravenbank School and the Naturegarten nursery. Currently, there are a high number of turning movements, made by parents, occurring outside the school and residential properties during drop off and collection times. Given the increase in pupil numbers at the school, it has been considered necessary to address current road safety issues and as such, a package of road safety measures has been developed.

1.3 The measures include the introduction of a turning circle at the east end of

Pepper Street and a raised speed table to the west of the school pedestrian access, both of which have already been constructed on site. The turning circle has been implemented to allow for a free flow of traffic which will eliminate the need for parents to have to undertake dangerous turns in the road. The raised speed table was implemented as a traffic calming feature and also to provide a prominent pedestrian crossing point on Pepper Street. Included within the proposed measures that require a traffic regulation order is “No Waiting at Any Time” restrictions to prevent parking on the turning circle, at junctions and adjacent to the school entrance / exit. The proposed waiting restrictions will prevent vehicles from being parked in locations which potentially reduce or block passing motorists’ view of Primary School Children emerging between vehicles when crossing the carriageway.

1.4 The package of measures includes the proposed use of "School Keep Clear"

markings, which prohibit any vehicle from stopping on them between 8am and 5pm, Monday to Friday. The markings will protect the pedestrian entrances to the school and nursery. The proposals also include the implementation of two parking bays with space for at least 9 cars. Waiting time in the bays would be limited to 20 minutes; no return permitted within 40 minutes, between the hours of 7am and 6pm, Monday to Friday.

1.5 Local Ward Members and directly affected residents / stakeholders were

consulted and the majority supported the introduction of the road safety measures. Statutory consultations were also carried out as part of the Order making process.

1.6 During the statutory consultation period, four written objections were received.

One objection is from a resident who lives opposite the school and the other

Agenda Item 4

objections were from parents with children at the school / nursery. Due to similar comments made within the objections, it was first proposed to amend the design by eliminating the limited waiting bays, leaving those sections of carriageway unrestricted. The limited waiting bays could then have been discussed and dealt with as a separate issue. All of the objectors were informed of the possible amendment and asked if this would resolve their objection. This resulted in the resident stating that he would withdraw his objection if this was to be the case. However, the other three objectors did not withdraw their objections.

1.7 Officers also received comments that the relaxation of the proposed restrictions

would be detrimental to the scheme concept that had been agreed through consultation and would not be well received if the council progressed without further consultation.

1.8 Officers met with local residents and representatives from both Ravenbank

School and Naturegarten nursery on 19th March 2012. The consensus of the meeting was that the proposals should be implemented as originally advertised. However, to try to resolve the resident’s objection, officers offered to reduce one of the proposed limited waiting bays by one car length so that enough un-restricted space would remain on the carriageway for one vehicle. The resident is not in favour of this amendment and wishes his objection to remain.

1.9 It is anticipated that the introduction of the road safety measures will remove

obstructive parking from this section of Pepper Street; improve visibility; reduce vehicular conflict and; ease congestion for residents.

2.0 LEGAL POSITION SECTION 122 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT

1984 2.1 When exercising their function of making road traffic orders under the Road

Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Council are under a duty imposed by Section 122 of the Act to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. The Council must, so far as is practicable , have regard to a number of matters set out in Section 122 (2) which are as follows:-

(a) The desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to

premises.

(b) The effect on the amenities of any locality affected, including the importance of regulating and restricting the use of roads by heavy commercial vehicles so as to preserve or to improve the amenities of the areas through which the roads run.

(c) The National Air Quality strategy prepared under Section 80 of the

Environment Act 1995.

Agenda Item 4

(d) The importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of

securing the safety and convenience of persons using or wishing to use such vehicles.

(e) Any other matters thought by the Local Authority to be relevant.

2.2 Before making any particular road traffic order, the Council must consider all

objections duly made during the statutory consultation period and must carry out a balancing exercise where representation in support of the proposed order have also been received. The Council must decide how much weight to attach to these having regard to the individual circumstances of the case. The Council must, however, at all times bear in mind the statutory duty to which they are subject by virtue of Section122.

2.3 The Committee is advised that as there are no properties from which objections

have been received that will be denied vehicular access via at least one public highway, then it has the power to determine the objections and instruct the officers to proceed appropriately.

3.0 OBJECTIONS 3.1 In response to the statutory advertisement, four objections have been received

relating to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) as detailed below: 3.2 Objection 1 - Mr and Mrs P Hill

It is noted that the objectors believe that the drop off and pick up of their children would be directly affected by the proposals. The objectors believe that the new turning circle has taken away a significant amount of parking places from directly outside the school and that the proposed limited 20 minute parking would not help as it would put pressure on the Pepper Street car park, for which there is a charge. They are unsure of the appropriateness of the “Keep Clear” markings closest to Naturegarten which do not cover the main busy area in front of the school and state that “extending the allowance of parking on the “Keep Clear” markings until 8.30am and from 4.30pm would significantly improve drop off and pick up convenience”.

3.3 Objection 2 – Mr Ian Fitton – 93 Pepper Street, Lymm

The objector, who has children attending the school and also happens to be a resident, states that he has supported all the changes to the traffic arrangements associated with the increased capacity of Ravenbank School to date and is pleased that in the expansion of the school; so much thought has been given to the safety of the pupils.

Agenda Item 4

However, the objector states that the particular measure of a limited waiting bay will increase the number of traffic movement’s right outside the school, where most of the crossing of the road takes place by pupils. The objector states that this particular traffic restriction will cause a problem for both emergency vehicles accessing Cyril Bell Close and service vehicles. He also believes that residents of 91-97 Pepper Street are penalised in that they potentially have to move cars every morning when the restricted period starts, therefore increasing vehicle movements and the risk of accidents.

3.4 Objection 3 – Katie Baverstock

The objector states that prior to the construction of the turning circle, parents were able to park outside the school before the teachers arrived and that the construction of the turning circle has displaced approximately seven parking spaces from the east end of Pepper Street adjacent to the access gate. When there were no free spaces outside the school, the parents could use the unmarked areas on Pepper Street, but these are now proposed to be limited waiting bays or an extension to the existing double yellow lines. The objector has concerns about where to park if ten cars all arrive together just after 8am, presumably if they cannot all park within the proposed limited waiting bays. The objector goes on to question why the “School Keep Clear” markings are to be used as they ask “How many buses / coaches need to be accommodated by a school with a very local catchment area?” The objector also has concerns that national standard lengths for the “School Keep Clear” markings have been used rather than considering the requirements of Ravenbank and Naturegarten on an individual basis.

3.5 Objection 4 – Tina Watmough – 16 Brookfield Road, Lymm

The objector states that they appreciate that local residents want to keep parked cars out of the area and that there have been road safety issues outside the school, they then go on to say that the proposals will cause access issues for school drop off and collection. The objector also states that the impact on the Rosebank / Naturegarten nurseries will be huge and they risk losing strength if parents decide to remove children because it becomes a problem and hassle every time they collect or drop off children at the nursery. The objector states that “nursery access is required throughout the day and restricting parking all day seems crazy, especially for Naturegarten, where no close parking is provided”. The objector mentions concerns about the proposed parking restrictions moving the problem further down the road and into the village which she says is already extremely stressed for parking. The objector raises concerns that there does not seem to be any consideration for alternative parking provision.

4.0 RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

Agenda Item 4

4.1 Objection 1

Given the increase in pupil numbers at Ravenbank School, it has been considered necessary to address current road safety issues and as such, the package of measures has been developed to alleviate the high level of vehicle turning movements that take place outside the school and also to prevent parking adjacent to the school entrance / exit, which potentially reduces / blocks the motorists view of primary school children emerging between vehicles when crossing the carriageway.

It is appreciated that these measures may cause inconvenience to those parents that wish to park as close as possible to their destinations. However, alternative parking is available on unrestricted sections of Pepper Street within a reasonable walking distance of the school and nursery. Given the road safety benefits that these proposals will deliver for those children / pupils attending the nursery and school, it is considered that these measures satisfy Warrington Borough Council’s statutory duty for ensuring the safe and efficient use of the highway for all road users. With regards to the objector’s request for amending the hours of operation for the School Keep Clear markings, it should be noted that the times of operation proposed are standard and are used across Warrington as well as nationwide. It is advised that the operational times of these restrictions should remain consistent in all areas and should not be amended on a case by case basis. This consistency would aide compliance as the signs and road markings are nationally recognised. After the statutory consultation period, it was proposed to amend the design by eliminating the limited waiting bays so that they could be left as unrestricted parking areas. It was intended that the bays could be dealt with as a separate issue at a later date, in order to get the rest of the road safety measures in place. The objector was informed of the possible amendment and asked if this would resolve their objection. Council officers received no reply; therefore, the objection remains unresolved.

4.2 Objection 2

Due to comments received from Mr Fitton and others, subsequent to the promotion of the measures, it was proposed to relax the restrictions by removing the two limited waiting bays leaving this kerbside space free of restrictions. It was intended that the bays could be dealt with as a separate issue at a later date, in order to get the rest of the road safety measures in place. Mr Fitton subsequently withdrew his objection based on the proposed elimination of the limited waiting bays from the proposals.

Agenda Item 4

As the other 3 objectors did not withdraw their objections it was necessary to progress with the original proposals as advertised. It was suggested to Mr Fitton that a compromise position which may be agreeable to all stakeholders would be to reduce one of the limited waiting bays by one car length and this space be left unrestricted. Mr Fitton was against this proposal and wishes his objection to remain.

4.3 Objection 3

Improvement work has recently been carried out to Ravenbank School resulting in an increase in pupil capacity. Current traffic conditions within the area fronting the school are, as the objector has stated, congested due to the large number of children and pupils dropped off at the nursery and school. The objector was informed that “School Keep Clear" markings prohibit any vehicle from stopping on them during their times of operation. They are not implemented to keep the carriageway clear for buses / coaches. It was later clarified with the objector that stopping / waiting on the markings would be prohibited between the hours of 8am and 5pm Monday to Friday, but permitted at all other times. Members should note that “School Keep Clear” markings are implemented for the purpose of keeping the highway clear of all vehicles near to and across the pedestrian entrance / exit at schools. The objector is mistaken in thinking that they are to keep the carriageway clear for school buses / coaches. The times of operation of the “School Keep Clear” restrictions must cover the peak period at school start and finish times in order for them to be effective. The road markings denoting the “School Keep Clear” are a standard length that is set by Department for Transport regulations. The authority is bound by these regulations and must abide by the standards in order to enable the restrictions to be legally enforced. After the statutory consultation period, it was proposed to amend the design by eliminating the limited waiting bays so that they could be left as unrestricted parking areas. It was intended that the bays could be dealt with as a separate issue at a later date, in order to get the rest of the road safety measures in place. The objector was informed of the possible amendment and asked if this would resolve their objection. Council officers received no reply; therefore, the objection remains unresolved.

4.4 Objection 4

After the statutory consultation period, it was proposed to amend the design by eliminating the limited waiting bays so that they could be left as unrestricted parking areas. The objector was informed of the possible amendment and asked if this would resolve their objection. Council officers received no reply; therefore, the objection remains unresolved. It was intended that the bays could be dealt with as

Agenda Item 4

a separate issue at a later date, in order to get the rest of the road safety measures in place. It should be noted that the measures have been developed to provide a safer environment on Pepper Street, in the vicinity of the school entrance. The measures will control parking, removing ambiguity for pedestrians, and removing potential conflicts from difficult turning manoeuvres. It is inevitable that some parking will need to migrate further from the school gate and this will inconvenience parents, although this must be accepted as necessary to remove the safety concerns around the frontage of Ravensbank School.

5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1 The costs associated with implementing the proposal is approximately £3000, and

will be funded as part of a section 106 agreement.

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 Having considered the contents of this report, it is recommended that Members confirm the intention of introducing the Order detailed in the delegated approval attached (Annex A).

. Clearance Details (Record of clearance of report): Name Consulted Date

Consulted Yes No Relevant Executive Board Member SMB Relevant Strategic Director Solicitor to the Council S151 Officer Relevant Head of Service

9. Background Papers: Delegated approval to advertise (Annex A) TRO plan illustrating the extents of the proposed restrictions (Annex B) Letter of objection from Mr and Mrs Hill (Annex C) Letter of objection from Mr Ian Fitton (Annex D) Letter of objection from Katie Baverstock (Annex E) Letter of objection from Tina Watmough (Annex F)

Agenda Item 4

Contacts for Background Papers:

Name E-mail Telephone Joanne Evans jevans1@warrington.gov.uk 01925 442691

(See next page to continue report).

Agenda Item 4

Annex A

Agenda Item 4

Agenda Item 4

Annex B

Agenda Item 4

Annex C

Agenda Item 4

Annex D

Agenda Item 4

Agenda Item 4

Annex E

Agenda Item 4

Annex F

(1) Agenda 12 June 2012Chair – B BrinksmanTraffic Committee – AgendaCouncil Chamber, Town Hall, Sankey Street, WarringtonA G E N D APart 2NIL

(3) Draft Minutes 12th June 2012(3) Minutes 1 November 2011(4) Traffic Committee Report Pepper Street_Ravensbank NWAAT, School Keep Clear Markings and limited waitingExecutive Director of Environment and Regeneration DirectorateJoanne EvansN/ALow

Ward members and all other interested parties have been consulted as part of the statutory order making process.Joanne Evans