Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Environment

16 July 2002

Project Appraisal: Titchfield Road, Stubbington - Proposed Pelican Crossing

Report of the County Surveyor

Item 10

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

EXECUTIVE MEMBER - ENVIRONMENT

PROJECT APPRAISAL

PROJECT:

TITCHFIELD ROAD, STUBBINGTON - PELICAN CROSSING

COMMENCEMENT DATE:

SEPTEMBER 2002

COMPLETION DATE:

OCTOBER 2002

PLANNED YEAR OF START IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAPITAL PROGRAMME: 2002/03

1.

FINANCE (Client Department, Director of Property, Business and Regulatory Services [Estates Practice] and County Treasurer)

Current

Capital

Estimate

Programme

(at Mar 02

(at Mar 02

prices)

prices)

Capital Expenditure

£'000

£'000

Land to be purchased

Nil

Construction

25

35

Fees

10

35

35

Less developers/

other contributions

35

35

Financial provision for total scheme

Total Cost

1.

From Committees own resources

(a) Capital programme (Minor Works Pedestrian Facility 2002/03)

35

(b) Other

35

2.

From other resources

(a)

(b)

(c)

TOTAL

35

Value of land for this project in HCC ownership £

Variations from capital programme

Revenue implications

£'000

% variation

to Committee's

budget

Net current expenditure

1.2

0.002

Capital charges

3.5

0.004

TOTAL net expenditure

4.7

0.006

2.

STATEMENT OF NEED/JUSTIFICATION FOR PROJECT

(Client Department)

Requests have been received from members of the public and Fareham Borough Council, supported by the local Member - Councillor Knight, for the installation of a controlled crossing on Titchfield Road, near St Mary's Road, Stubbington (see attached location plan).

A school crossing patrol is in operation at the site but the volume and speed of traffic make it difficult for him to help children cross this busy road. A count of vehicles and pedestrians has produced a PV² value of 0.7 x 10⁸ which reaches a level where a controlled crossing is justified in special circumstances.

In view of the site conditions at this location it is considered that a signalled controlled Pelican crossing is the appropriate type of crossing to be installed.

A detailed plan will be displayed at the meeting.

3.

ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROPOSAL (Client Department)

National/County network and policies

The proposal is consistent with the County Council's transportation strategy; that is to reduce accident potential and provide improved facilities for pedestrians and safer routes to schools.

Details of scheme and design standards

The crossing design adheres to the Department for Transport (formerly the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions) standards together with Hampshire County Council standards, and has been safety audited at the appropriate stages in the design process. The provision of a crossing at this location is justified in accordance with the criteria where there are special considerations.

Environmental impact

The proposal has negligible consequences for the environment.

Land requirements

No land acquisition required. All works to be confined within existing public highway limits.

Statutory procedures

All necessary statutory requirements have been satisfied in the development of this proposal.

Public consultation

Public notices have been posted on site for 28 days giving details of the proposal. As a result five letters commenting on the proposed location of the crossing were received.

Objector 1 supports the need for a crossing but considers that the proposed crossing location is too close to St Mary's Road. This will make it difficult for heavy goods vehicles turning right towards the crossing as they would have difficulty straightening up before they reach it. Concern is also raised about the forward visibility of the crossing for traffic travelling towards Stubbington Village.

Objector 2 supports the need for a crossing but considers that it should be located further west between the boundary of 92 and 94 Titchfield Road. There is also concern that the proposed location of the crossing is too near St Mary's Road and it would be difficult for a car to straighten up before reaching the crossing when turning right out of St Mary's Road. A crossing in this alternative position would encourage pedestrians to use Anker Lane rather than Titchfield Road to access Stubbington Village centre.

Objector 3 considers that the crossing would be better located near Anker Lane, which would benefit schoolchildren to Anne Dale and Hammond Schools. There is better visibility at this location which would move the crossing away from St Mary's Road and also remove the need to re-site the bus stop. While appreciating that there is a desperate need for a crossing in Titchfield Road, a facility outside his house would increase noise and pollution, especially caused by heavy goods vehicles. These factors would make the front garden untenable. The objector considers his property would be devalued as a result of the crossing and raises the issue of compensation and lower Council Tax. A footway improvement on the north side of Titchfield Road would be supported which could then accommodate a crossing closer to Stubbington village.

Objector 4 considers that the crossing should be located adjacent to Anker Lane where it is believed it would be used by more people. The suggestion was made that a survey be conducted to justify the crossing at the location near St Mary's Road. Concern is raised about the forward visibility for southbound traffic approaching the crossing. If the crossing was positioned to where the objector suggests it would remove the need to relocate the bus stop to the east of St Mary's Road and also to reposition the post box. Concern is also raised regarding traffic turning right into Titchfield Road from St Mary's Road and the close proximity of the proposed crossing to this junction. The crossing will increase the level of noise close to this objector's property from traffic and the audible warning. The crossing would reduce the value of his property and raise the issue of compensation and reduction in Council Tax. If the Stubbington Bypass was built this might negate the need for a crossing.

Objector 5 took up residence in August last year and, although aware of the proposal for a crossing, thought it would be sited further north closer to Anker Lane. It is believed this is the better location and observations support this view. It has been requested that a count be taken to justify the crossing at the proposed location. Concern is raised about forward visibility and that the crossing would be better sited nearer Anker Lane. The relocation of the bus stop outside the objector's house would be unnecessary if a site further north was chosen. The post box would also not need re-siting. The crossing is too close to St Mary's Road which will result in a build-up of traffic and problems exiting from that road. The proposed location of the crossing will result in additional noise from traffic and the audible warning. There will be an increase in air pollution caused by vehicles stopping and waiting on the approaches to the crossing. As a result of the proposed crossing the property could devalue in price and affect future selling ability; it would also raise the question of compensation and reduction in Council Tax. If the Stubbington Bypass was built this would negate the need for a crossing. They would welcome the opportunity to voice their concerns at any `inquiry'.

Comments or Objections

Most objectors consider that the crossing should be located further north near Anker Lane.

A pedestrian count was taken between 0800 and 0900 on 20 June 2002 at the site of the school crossing patrol which is adjacent to the proposed Pelican crossing. The count showed that 50 pedestrians crossed from St Mary's Road to the west side of Titchfield Road and 9 crossed in the opposite direction. After crossing from St Mary's Road 32 pedestrians turned right towards Titchfield and 18 turned left towards Stubbington. The only other possible site for a crossing is 45 metres north, towards Titchfield. It is considered unlikely that the 18 pedestrians who wish to go towards Stubbington would go 90 metres out of their way to a crossing at this location. The 32 pedestrians travelling towards Titchfield could use a crossing at either location.

A letter has been received from the school crossing patrol warden who operates close to the junction of St Mary's Road. He is concerned that if the crossing was not located at the proposed site it would not be used by the majority of children. He is particularly worried that young children who walk from the Stubbington Village direction along Titchfield Road and travel down St Mary's Road might not walk to the crossing if it was sited further north.

There are concerns about the forward visibility of the crossing but this meets the required design standards. The crossing is located close to St Mary's Road but one of the reasons for this is to allow drivers of vehicles from 107 Titchfield Road the ability to turn right from this access onto the crossing. Experience has shown that crossings near to junctions can make it easier for vehicles exiting from nearby side roads as they create gaps in the traffic when they allow pedestrians to cross. Vehicles turning right out of St Mary's Road should not have a problem stopping at the crossing which would of course stop traffic travelling towards them from Titchfield direction at the same time.

Local Member's Views

The local Member, Councillor Knight, supports the proposal.

Facilities for the disabled

The proposed scheme incorporates tactile paving and audible warnings for the visually impaired and flush kerbs at the crossing point for wheelchairs, prams and the less mobile.

Maintenance implications

There will be minimal revenue implications arising from this proposal and they will be taken into account in the setting of the annual base budget.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

The provisions of this Act have no impact on this proposal.

Sustainability

The Pelican crossing supports walking which is a sustainable form of transport.

4.

ROAD IMPROVEMENT - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

(Client Department)

A Zebra crossing was considered but a Pelican crossing is more appropriate. The proposed location would be used by more pedestrians than the only other alternative site in the area.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1.

Published works.

2.

Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE

LOCATION

File Pel/6140

County Surveyor's Department

ITS Group, Monument House