Archived decisions
APPENDIX 1
RESPONSE FROM BISHOPS WALTHAM PARISH COUNCIL
From: Lindsay [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 08 April 2009 11:15
To: Ware, Mandy
Subject: Beeches Hill
Good morning Mandy
At last night's Policy, Resources and Planning Committee the following resolution was passed:
Beeches Hill Rural Traffic Calming.
"Bishop's Waltham Parish Council accept the proposals as outlined by the officers of Hampshire Highways East but comment that the Council was concerned that the District Councillors had not been involved in the process."
Hope that is enough for your report.
Kind regards
Lindsay
|
APPENDIX 1 Hampshire Constabulary Chief Constable Alex Marshall | ||||
Hampshire Highways East Hampshire County Council Central Depot Bar End Road Winchester SO23 9NP |
Wayte Street | ||||
Deaf/speech impaired minicom: 01962 875000 | |||||
Email: [email protected] | |||||
| |||||
Dear Mandy
Beeches Hill, Bishops Waltham - Traffic Calming scheme.
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the traffic calming scheme on Beeches Hill, Bishops Waltham.
The consultation process that has taken place between Hampshire Highways and the Police regarding the speed and volume of traffic using Beeches Hill started in 2000.
I received a copy of 2 letters from Insp Moore following complaints of high volumes, high speed and other issues concerning this road. In October 2001 I received a copy of a survey conducted by a resident of Beeches Hill to all the other residents. This survey was to establish the concerns of the residents. The top three issues were speed, volume and use by LGVs. Beeches Hill was being used and still is by large numbers of vehicles wishing to travel from the south to connect with the strategic road network at Winchester. The traffic survey conducted show a distinct tidal pattern to the traffic flow. Speed surveys and speed enforcement identified that a percentage of vehicle were exceeding the posted 30 mph limit. Collision records showed that Beeches Hill did have some serious injury collisions and a previous fatal collision. This was also highlighted as a concern for some of the residents.
In 2003 a consultation with Hampshire County Council Highways was undertaken and agreed to implement a traffic calming scheme along Beeches Hill. This involved a lining scheme, a reduction in the speed limit and a series of horizontal build outs to reduce the speed of traffic.
It was agreed to implement a trial for the build outs to see if this was a viable method of speed and volume reduction. This was welcomed by the vast majority of the residents I spoke with at this time. We did received some complaints that the chicanes did not allow large vehicles easy access to the road. Other complaints received were that the trial bollards were constantly being struck by vehicles passing through the chicane and drivers were racing to beat opposing vehicles through the narrow sections. These complaints were verbal. I do not have documents regarding these complaints other than those copied to me by Hampshire Highways.
Pedestrian access was always going to be an issue on this route as it is a narrow road with no footways. There was a discussion to identify whether a footway, of some description could be introduced, I understand that due to the road width and issues with land ownership to build a footway would not be possible.
In order to improve pedestrian safety, it was necessary to reduce the volume and speed of traffic using this route. To maintain compliance with the posted speed limit in the absence of a Police patrol car, it was necessary to implement some form of traffic calming. I understand that due to the topography of the road, there was a limited engineering response available. Horizontal build outs were the agreed option and this was supported by the Police. It was also supported by the majority of residents and local council.
Should you require copies of any correspondence please let me know and I would be happy to supply them.
Yours sincerely
Chris Laycock
PC 2463
Safer Roads Officer
APPENDIX 1
Hampshire Coalition of Disabled People Ltd
9-19 Rose Road, Southampton, SO14 6TE
Tel: 08451 221 487
Fax: 023 8020 2652
Web: www.hcodp.co.uk
Email: [email protected]
7 August 2007
Mandy Ware
Transport Team East
Environment Department
Central Depot
Hampshire County Council
Bar End Road
Winchester
SO23 9NP
Dear Mandy
Re Beeches Hill, Bishops Waltham - Rural Traffic Calming
Thank you for your letter and plans for above. I have been out and surveyed the area. Whilst this goes against the aims and objectives of HCODP I have to agree that there is not the width available to cater for pedestrians, including mothers and prams and wheelchair users, in this proposed permanent traffic calming.
I would however strongly suggest Hampshire County Council makes signage very clear to indicate there are pedestrians in the carriageway and possibly light the area. but I understand this is a rural area and lighting may not be possible.
I hope this helps with your decision making.
Kind regards
Development Officer
APPENDIX 2
BEECHES HILL, BISHOP'S WALTHAM - TRIAL TRAFFIC CALMING
Results of consultation exercise and traffic monitoring.
A questionnaire distributed in December 2005 to residents local to Beeches Hill requested responses to six basic questions and invited comments on the trial traffic calming scheme implemented in September 2005. A total of 111 questionnaires were distributed with 72 responses received, a total return of 64%.
The results are summarised below :
Q1 : Do you support the principle of reducing speeds by means of traffic calming ?
YES = 90% NO = 10%
Q2 : Do you support the provision of chicane traffic calming ?
YES = 63% NO = 33% UNSURE = 4%
Q3: Do you consider that a speed reduction has been achieved ?
YES = 68% NO = 29% UNSURE = 3%
Q4: Have you noticed a general change in driver behaviour ?
YES (+ve) = 46% YES (-ve) = 26% NO = 21% UNSURE = 7%
Q5: Do you feel that the environment on Beeches Hill is safer ?
YES = 61% NO = 29% UNSURE = 10%
Q6: Would you like the trial scheme to become permanent ?
YES = 68% NO = 29% UNSURE = 3%
To summarise the majority supported the chicane traffic calming, considered that a speed reduction had been achieved, felt that the Beeches Hill environment was safer and would like the trial scheme to become permanent.
Speed data was collected in November 2005, with the trial scheme in place, and a speed reduction is evident. At this time the 85 percentile speed recorded was 34.9mph, which when compared with speed data recorded in November 2004 demonstrates a speed reduction of 3.7mph.
Additionally, there has been a significant decrease in the numbers of vehicles travelling at excessive speeds. In November 2004 there were around 204 vehicles travelling at speeds in excess of 41mph, but in November 2005 this number had reduced to 42.
A slight reduction in the traffic volume is noted, with 3022 vehicles per day being recorded in November 2004 which in November 2005 had reduced to 2867 vehicles per day.
The questionnaire invited specific comments and these are summarised as follows :
% |
COMMENT |
RESPONSE |
18% |
ASHTON LANE Concern over increased traffic levels and rat-running. |
Survey data has been collected that records traffic levels in Ashton Lane prior to the trial scheme being implemented, and whilst Beeches Hill was subject to a road closure in June 2005. It is interesting to note that the data collected at the time of the road closure recorded a daily traffic volume of 900 vehicles per day, whilst in July 2005 a daily traffic volume of 424 vehicles per day was recorded. The increased traffic volume at the time of the road closure was not an unexpected result, but must be considered alongside the fact that Beeches Hill generally carries in the region of 3000 vehicles per day. This demonstrates that only a small proportion of the regular Beeches Hill traffic diverted via Ashton Lane, the majority is likely to have taken the more appropriate route via the B2177. I have arranged for further survey data to be collected for Ashton Lane whilst the trial traffic calming is in place and am awaiting the results. |
20% 20% 1% |
BEECHES HILL Further measures are required either side of those proposed. Speeds are high either side of the trial traffic calming. There is an accident history at the top of the hill which the proposed chicanes will not assist in resolving. |
The traffic calming features are proposed in locations where they will be most beneficial in providing a speed reduction, at the centre of the Beeches Hill community. This type of physical traffic calming is not appropriate in all circumstances and due regard must be given to factors such as road geometry, dimension and character, forward visibility and access to individual premises. To the north of the proposed sites the road is winding, forward visibility is limited, there is a series of junctions in close proximity and accesses to properties. To the south there are accesses that could be impeded, a footway exists which offers some protection for pedestrians, and the character of the environment differs with less fronting development being evident. In these circumstances traffic calming to the north and south is not appropriate. |
15% 1% 3% |
BEECHES HILL Pedestrians feel vulnerable and measures such as a footway are needed. Pedestrians feel safer when walking on Beeches Hill with the traffic calming in place. Pedestrians have been clipped by passing traffic. |
There is insufficient land available for the construction of a footway alongside the carriageway. Additionally, the carriageway itself is narrow and could not accommodate a footway. The detailed design of the traffic calming features will take account of pedestrian use and offer some refuge at these points. |
7% 1% |
BEECHES HILL There has been no change, the measures have not worked. Motorcycle speeds have not reduced. |
The scheme has been successful in reducing traffic speeds. |
3% |
BEECHES HILL Regular speed enforcement is required. |
The Police do undertake speed enforcement on Beeches Hill. It must be appreciated that the Police have the unenviable task of prioritising their resource amongst many activities. In view of the number of speed limits in operation county-wide, little attention can be provided to an individual locations. |
15% |
BEECHES HILL The blocks have been moved from their original position allowing speeds to increase due to the softer profile. |
The blocks have been repositioned to address the issues faced by larger or towing vehicles that need to travel through Beeches Hill. The features have presented some difficulties for these types of vehicle which the change in profile has eased. The scheme has achieved a speed reduction. |
6% 15% 16% |
BEECHES HILL Drivers are more tolerant in waiting their turn, behaving sensibly and are more aware. Drivers race to get through chicanes. The method causes rage, less tolerance and failure to give way. |
The evidence suggests that drivers are changing their behaviour in view of the changed circumstances. However, traffic calming by its nature does create a situation where drivers have to make judgements about an approaching drivers course of action. |
11% |
BEECHES HILL Speed cameras should be provided. |
Operational safety cameras are managed by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Safety Camera Partnership which was introduced in 2002. The Partnership works with the local community to reduce casualties by a combination of speed enforcement, safety engineering and education. Fixed camera locations and mobile enforcement sites are identified as sites or routes where there is a history of serious injury collisions and a significant percentage of drivers are exceeding the speed limit. The process of identifying sites and routes is ongoing. Speed and casualty data is regularly monitored throughout the county with areas identified as being problematic and conforming to the appropriate criteria being subject to camera enforcement. Beeches Hill does not meet the criteria for camera enforcement. |
6% |
BEECHES HILL Flashing vehicle activated signs would enhance the speed limit. |
Vehicle Activated Signing is considered for locations where an accident history has developed that is associated with inappropriate speeds and where other measures have not proved effective. This is the approach supported by the Department for Transport who have developed guidance for their deployment and use. |
1% |
BEECHES HILL The boundary walls that are close to the carriageway edge are a danger to travellers. |
There are a number of properties and boundary walls that are close to the carriageway edge and contribute to the character of Beeches Hill. The reduced speeds that the traffic calming offers will assist in protecting these features. |
6% 6% 1% |
ASHTON LANE A speed reduction is needed. BEECHES HILL A 20mph should be imposed in place of the current 30mph. The 30mph speed limit should be extended. |
Speed limits are set in accordance with national criteria developed by the Department for Transport over its many years of involvement with speed limits, and which consider all the relevant factors such as the general character of the road, the type and extent of frontage development, the accident history and the actual speed of the traffic. The most influential factor affecting a drivers speed choice and behaviour is the road appearance which is heavily influenced by a roads geometry and the environment through which it passes. Motorists will make judgements based on information received from the surrounding environment, such as the amount and proximity of development, the presence of street lighting, the location of footways, and the level of pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular activity. With regard to Beeches Hill, the speed limits have been imposed in accordance with this criteria and are set at the correct level. Experience has shown that simply making speed limit Orders and installing the associated signing does not affect driver speed or behaviour where the conditions are not appropriate. Ashton Lane, however, is a country lane with small pockets of development and in this situation drivers must drive with due regard to the rural environment and road layout. Speed data collected for Ashton Lane recorded 85 percentile speeds of 30mph, therefore the introduction of a 30mph speed limit is unlikely to effect a change in driver behaviour. Additionally, the rural nature of Ashton Lane could be compromised by the addition of signing. |
4% |
ASHTON LANE Ashton Lane has deteriorated with potholes forming and overgrown hedges. |
The local Hampshire Highways Unit, who have responsibility for general highway maintenance, will be made aware of this comment. |
3% |
BEECHES HILL The traffic calming, with stopping and starting, is dangerous in winter conditions. |
The traffic calming has been in trial throughout the winter period to ascertain the level of difficulty in seasonal conditions. A permanent traffic calming scheme will include anti-skid surfacing on the downhill approaches. |
1% 1% |
BEECHES HILL 30mph in place, traffic flow should not be impeded. Traffic has not increased in speed and volume over the last 20 years. |
The 30mph speed limit and road marking improvements had not maintained a speed reduction to an appropriate level. Prior to the commencement of the traffic calming trial the 85 percentile speed was 38.6mph and the traffic volume was 3022 vehicles per day. |
7% 3% |
BEECHES HILL There is a lack of awareness of driveways, some residents are experiencing difficulties. The edge lines are now faint and need refurbishment. |
The carriageway edge lining identifies the location of individual driveways through the transition of continuous lining to intermittent lining across the accesses. For those residing close to the measures a `KEEP CLEAR' marking can prevent the entrance being obstructed through queuing traffic. The edge lines will be refurbished as part of this project. |
8% |
BEECHES HILL Difficulties being experienced with HCV traffic, horse boxes and towed trailers. In particular boxed horses find the negotiation of the measures unbalancing. |
The tracking of these vehicles will be taken into account within the final design of the features. However, the speed reduction is achieved through the deviation of a vehicles path and therefore will need to remain. |
10% 1% 1% |
BEECHES HILL A road hump scheme would be more effective. There are better alternatives to chicanes. Suggestion of 1 or 2 pinch points. |
Road humps are subject to regulation and can only be used in street lit locations, where for genuine road safety reasons a very significant speed reduction is essential. Where such measures are provided a suitable alternative route must be available for those motorists not wishing to negotiate them. There are disbenefits terms of noise for residents, particularly where fronting properties are close to the roadside. Consideration must also be given to the emergency services, buses and towing vehicles which can be hindered by road humps. For these reasons Beeches Hill is not a suitable site for road humps. Chicane traffic calming is being considered for this site as the traffic flow is heavy in one direction over the morning and evening peak times, but at other times of day the traffic volume is much lighter. Chicanes produce a speed reduction through the deviation of a vehicles route, as well as the need to give way to oncoming traffic. Unlike many other traffic calming methods they do not rely upon there being a constant two-way traffic flow. Pinch points rely upon a constant two-way traffic flow to produce a speed reduction through motorists giving way to other oncoming motorists. Where a constant two-way traffic flow does not exist, as is the case for Beeches Hill, these measures encourage little speed reduction. |
4% 6% |
ASHTON LANE Would benefit from an `access only' restriction. BEECHES HILL Would benefit from a weight restriction to deter HCVs. |
In order to sign a route as `access only' it is necessary to make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to prohibit all through traffic, allowing only those with legitimate business in the area to enter. It is essential that the Police, as the enforcement authority, support the progression of any TRO and are reluctant to do so unless a primarily self-enforcing regime can be presented as the resource required to ensure compliance is more than can reasonably be achieved. The enforcement of such restrictions is a resource intensive operation as the Police have to obtain sufficient evidence that a vehicle entering a restricted area does not have legitimate business there. Usually this means having to observe a vehicle travelling from one end of the restricted area to the other. With regard to restricting Heavy Commercial Vehicle access, progression is dependant upon there being sufficient actual through traffic to cause concern. There must be a suitable alternative route that does not involve an excessive increase to the distance drivers must travel. Furthermore, in the case of Beeches Hill, much of the HCV traffic is generated locally by those requiring access to premises. In general these types of restriction applied to long lengths of rural road are not self-enforcing and do not fulfil the role expected of them. |
3% 4% |
BEECHES HILL The right of way should be reversed on one chicane to allow a balance of flow. Confusion over who should give way. |
The current layout reflects the advice contained within the Highway Code that downhill traffic should give way to uphill traffic wherever possible. This arrangement also allows large and towing vehicles to maintain traction when travelling uphill. The detailed design will incorporate anti-skid surfacing on the downhill approaches which will also serve to highlight the priorities. |
1% |
ASHTON LANE Ashton Lane would benefit from pedestrian, horse and `unsuitable for ......' signing. |
Winchester City Council, under Agency Agreement, has responsibility for the delivery of the local traffic management service within the district. Under this arrangement `unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles' signs are proposed for Ashton Lane. |
3% |
BEECHES HILL Chicanes require more obvious signing. |
The current trial scheme incorporates advance warning signs for road narrows and single file traffic, plus reflective priority signs, reflective bollards and road markings at the feature itself. Furthermore, a safety audit of the trial scheme has been carried out. |
8% |
BEECHES HILL Concern over rat-running on Beeches Hill. |
The provision of traffic calming may assist in discouraging motorists to travel Beeches Hill as a through route. |
APPENDIX 3
BEECHES HILL, BISHOPS WALTHAM - COMMENTS SUMMARY NOVEMBER 2006
RESIDENT NO |
COMMENTS |
OFFICER RESPONSE |
1 |
(i) Drivers tend to drive up the centre of the road to avoid straddling the edge lines causing problems for oncoming vehicles to pass. The re-introduction of edge lines is suggested. (ii) In favour of the chicane traffic calming. |
The centre lining was removed originally to provide a visual narrowing effect encouraging motorists to exercise greater caution when travelling on Beeches Hill, reducing speeds as a result. This measure alone had achieved a small speed reduction. The running carriageway width between the two carriageway edge lines is not sufficient to allow the centre lines to be restored. |
2 |
(i) Traffic is damaging the verge outside of the property, despite continually building it up with soil. The situation has worsened since the trial traffic calming has been in place. The rain washes out the soil from the road edge creating a trench that is dangerous for walkers. Has sustained a sprained ankle in the trench and another resident tripped about a year ago and an ambulance was called. (ii) A lot of traffic does not give way coming down hill as required. |
(i) The proposed kerbing alongside the verge will prevent further verge erosion. (ii) Traffic calming by its nature does create a situation where drivers have to make judgements about an approaching drivers course of action. The priority system does go some way to assisting motorists in making this judgement. Furthermore the application of anti-skid surfacing on the downhill approaches where drivers must give way will assist. |
3 |
(i) The trial system has been regularly damaged by large vehicles and the adjusted design will help. (ii) It would be useful to consider a width / weight limit sign on the approaches to the chicanes as a refinement after monitoring. |
The provision of `unsuitable for HGV' will be proposed for Beeches Hill and Ashton Lane following the completion of this project to discourage through HGV traffic. |
4 |
(i) Farms the top end of Beeches Hill and has to move wide and long machinery through Beeches Hill, plus receive deliveries via 42 tonne vehicles. The widest machinery is 3.8m and the longest is 40 ft, therefore a 3.5m road width is insufficient and difficult to negotiate. Using other local roads will cause more hold up to traffic that the direct route via Beeches Hill. It was noted that several HGV drivers have found the chicanes difficult to negotiate, and a fully loaded vehicle that sustained a tear in the tyre wall may block the road unable to move until emergency repairs can be made. (ii) Agrees that physical measures are needed to slow the traffic, but the proposed measures are not practical. (iii) It is suggested that the distance between the chicane build outs is lengthened. |
(i) The proposed chicane traffic calming measures have been trialled continuously since September 2005. The permanent chicanes are less restrictive than those currently in temporary form. It is noted that some larger vehicles must take additional care when passing through the feature, but nevertheless have been able to do so for the past year. (ii) Considering the traffic patterns the proposed chicanes offer the most effective means of reducing traffic speeds. (iii) The chicane cannot be lengthened due to the position of the property entrances either side. |
5 |
(i) The measures are inconvenient for access to the property, and it is difficult to pull out when cars are queuing to pass through the chicane. (ii) The chicane should be further down the hill. |
(i) The introduction of a `KEEP CLEAR' marking to reduce access blocking can be considered should this prove an ongoing issue. However, the environmental implications of providing further road markings within a rural community must be considered. Furthermore, for the most part of the day traffic does not need to queue at the chicane due to the lighter traffic flow. |
6 |
Has heard that a County Council representative advised that large vehicles should use Ashton Lane. |
This is untrue. |
7 |
(i) Accepts that there are no easy solutions, but suggests that access to the area should be limited to local traffic only. (ii) Suggested that speed bumps could be used at regular intervals to discourage rat-running. |
(i) In order to limit traffic to `access only' it is necessary to make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to prohibit all through traffic, allowing only those with legitimate business in the area to enter. It is essential that the Police, as the enforcement authority, support the progression of any TRO However, they are reluctant to do so unless a primarily self-enforcing regime can be presented . The enforcement of such restrictions is a resource intensive operation as the Police have to obtain sufficient evidence that a vehicle entering a restricted area does not have legitimate business there which usually means having to observe a vehicle travelling from one end of the restricted area to the other. In general this type of restriction placed over long lengths of rural road are not self-enforcing and do not fulfil the expected role. (ii) Road humps are subject to regulation and can only be used in well street lit locations where for genuine road safety reasons a significant speed reduction is essential. Where such measures are provided a suitable alternative route must be available for those motorists not wishing to negotiate them. There are disbenefits in terms of noise issues for residents particularly where fronting properties are close to the road side. Consideration must also be given to the emergency services and towing vehicles who can be hindered by road humps. For these reasons Beeches Hill is not a suitable site for road humps. |
8 |
(i) Continues to oppose the proposals on the grounds that it is unsightly, motorists do not give way at the markings, accidents have increased, large and agricultural vehicles cannot negotiate the measures and the decrease in through traffic has reduced the passing trade. (ii) The business is recovering from a BT road closure over the summer and the decrease in passing trade due to the traffic calming, and there has been no recompense. (iii) Are committed to a business promotion starting in January and ending in April, and will take steps to avoid further interruptions during this period. (iv) Wish to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement to minimise the damage to the business. |
The residents' opposition to the proposals continue to be noted. The appearance of the traffic calming features will improve once permanent measures are constructed. The need to give way on the downhill approach to the chicanes will be clarified through the application of an anti-skid surfacing. Large and agricultural vehicles do need to exercise greater care when negotiating the chicanes. A small decrease in traffic flows has been determined through traffic surveys which is mainly due to the decrease in commuter traffic in the early morning peak time. A road closure will be necessary in association with these works and every effort will be made to maintain good access to the establishment during this time. Confirmation of the exact start date and working arrangements will be provided to the residents once known. |
9 |
(i) Concerned about turning and access to the property, and would like a `KEEP CLEAR' marking. (ii) Also concerned that motorists are still speeding and would like further enforcement. |
(i)The introduction of a `KEEP CLEAR' marking to reduce access blocking can be considered should this prove an ongoing issue. However, the environmental implications of providing further road markings within a rural community must be considered. Furthermore, for the most part of the day traffic does not need to queue at the chicane due to the lighter traffic flow. (ii) The need for further speed enforcement will be considered by the Police. |
10 |
(i) Believes that the decision to provide chicanes on a road with no footway is wrong. (ii) Suggests that 4 or 5 `SLOW' markings and rumble strips with the 30mph signing should be provided. |
(i) Considering the traffic patterns the proposed chicanes offer the most effective means of reducing traffic speeds. (ii) Unfortunately the fear of prosecution combined with simple road markings is not enough to ensure compliance. The provision of rumble strips has the disbenefits of noise issues for the residents. |
11 |
(i) Motorists do not stop at the give way markings. (ii) The road is too narrow for chicane traffic calming. (iii) Motorists still speed past the Ashton Lane junction. |
(i) Traffic calming by its nature does create a situation where drivers have to make judgements about an approaching drivers course of action. The priority system does go some way to assisting motorists in making this judgement. Furthermore the application of anti-skid surfacing on the downhill approaches where drivers must give way will assist. (ii) The road is narrow which is a limiting factor in applying traffic calming. However, prior to the trial traffic calming being installed traffic speeds were excessive for a narrow road in a small rural community. |
12 |
(i) Chicane 1 blocks the entrance to `Cloverdown' and `Nutshell'. This is contrary to the County Council advice that the features have been placed with the location of accesses in mind. (ii) The signs were knocked down by a combine harvester struggling to get through. A few of these vehicles need to use the hill during harvest time. Pedestrians, particularly those with buggies, are forced to walk into the centre of the road. Since dropped kerbing cannot be provided and signs are to be placed on the feature it is not possible for these pedestrians to take refuge. Pedestrians walking in dark clothing with opposing car headlights are difficult to see. (iii) Suggested that edge lining be provided one side only so that a pedestrian lane, reinforced with pinch points could be provided. This will provide the maximum practical separation. Previous County Council advice that pedestrians can benefit from the carriageway edge lining is not true for most of the hill and not possible for those pushing buggies. It is also not the case that pinch points will require priority working. (iv) It had been envisaged that a pedestrian lane would incorporate an area marked and signed for pedestrian priority and there is no directly relevant advice within the Highway Code. (v) Disagrees with the previous County Council response on the removal of the southbound edge line on the point that passing traffic will be encouraged to drive closer to the property entrances. Considers that this is not the case. |
(i)The introduction of a `KEEP CLEAR' marking to reduce access blocking can be considered should this prove an ongoing issue. However, the environmental implications of providing further road markings within a rural community must be considered. Furthermore, for the most part of the day traffic does not need to queue at the chicane due to the lighter traffic flow. (ii) The proposed chicane traffic calming measures have been trialled continuously since September 2005. The permanent chicanes are less restrictive than those currently in temporary form. It is noted that some larger vehicles must take additional care when passing through the feature, but nevertheless have been able to do so for the past year. (iii) Unfortunately, dropped kerbing cannot be provided to the required width to be of assistance to those walking with buggies due to the narrow dimensions of the build outs. The signs upon the chicanes are essential for road safety reasons. The project has been the subject of a safety audit. Pedestrians walking on a rural road in darkness must be responsible for their personal safety and wear light coloured or reflective clothing. The provision of regularly placed pinch point protection to a carriageway edge strip will obstruct residents entering and exiting their driveways, and narrow the carriageway to a substandard width for the single lane working. This situation will create localised congestion issues and further limit the passage of larger vehicles. Pinch points do not necessarily require a formal priority working system but will require motorists to `give and take'. (iv) For the most part of the day motorists experience little opposing traffic and travel between the carriageway edge lines. The removal of the carriageway edge lining on the south bound side to provide a wider carriageway edge strip on the south bound side will mean that south bound traffic will travel closer to the property entrances along that side continuously. A carriageway edge strip used informally by pedestrians as a `virtual footway' cannot be reserved for pedestrians as it remains part of the carriageway. Signing upon the public highway is governed by The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 which does not prescribe signing for a pedestrian lane upon a two-way carriageway. (v) Pedestrians can make use of the current carriageway edge strip between the road edge and the edge line. There is sufficient width for them to walk in single file, although due to the nature of the road and fallen leaves, the width of this strip does vary. A carriageway edge strip used informally by pedestrians as a `virtual footway' cannot be reserved for pedestrians as it remains part of the carriageway. Signing upon the public highway is governed by The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 which does not prescribe signing for a pedestrian lane upon a two-way carriageway. |
APPENDIX 4
BEECHES HILL, BISHOPS WALTHAM - COMMENTS SUMMARY MARCH 2009
The majority of the responses received to date are generally supportive of the scheme. Some responses suggest other measures such as speed cameras or more speed limit enforcement. Other raise concerns about the state of the temporary measures or the effectiveness of the scheme.
COMMENTER |
COMMENTS |
1 |
(i) View is that the measures have not significantly reduced the problem. (ii) The volume is still a lot of vehicles using a narrow lane with no pavement. (iii) The families main concern is still the traffic speed as most are in excess of 30mph and most appear to be travelling at 40mph. (iv) In the mornings (8am to 8-15am) it is too dangerous for the school children to walk to The White Horse PH to catch the mini-bus. (v) The children cannot even walk to each others houses because of the traffic speed, and this danger also applies to the cyclists and horse riders. (vi) Pulling out of the driveway is hazardous because of the speed of approaching vehicles. (vii) The chicanes are regularly damaged by large vehicles who ignore the `unsuitable for HGV' signs. (viii) The lane is too narrow for a pavement so drivers must be made to slow down - suggests a 20mph speed limit, road humps and rumble strips in addition to the chicanes. (ix) Does not think that a separate painted strip set aside for pedestrians would be a good solution unless combined with a 20mph speed limit. |
2 |
(i) Drivers during the rush hour are not keeping to the 30mph speed limit and don't give way in the evenings. (ii) In the mornings it is almost impossible to gain access to Beeches Hill due to the constant stream of traffic in the middle of the carriageway. (iii) Thinks that the most sensible option is to remove the chicanes and road edge markings, then reinstate the centre lines so that drivers keep to their side of the road, and install a speed camera. |
3 |
(i) Traffic may slow down to get through the chicane at the northern end but they are doing at least 40mph by the time they pass Primrose Terrace. (ii) Agrees that something needs to be done about the temporary arrangement as the kerb stones are often dislodged. (iii) The only way to control the traffic speed is to have a camera in operation at all times. (iv) If road safety is the main concern then can the road revert to its full width. |
4 |
(i) The decision will be taken by the Executive Member (Environment). HCCs Standing Orders only provide this power for key decisions or their equivalent. The project does not meet the criteria for a key decision and is not listed on the April 2009 list of key decisions. (ii) If the decision meeting is held then Councillor Kendal will be in breach of the Code of Conduct. (iii) Objects to the lack of proper consultation. (iv) The 25.3.09 letter is addressed to the residents of Beeches Hill and the Parish Council, local County Councillor, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural users have not been informed or consulted. (v) The closing date for comments precludes publicity for Beeches Hill and Bishops Waltham residents to engage in public discussion. (vi) HCC's promise in the 7.7.06 letter that a preliminary design would be available for consultation that summer has been broken. (vii) The site meeting on 23.3.09 had no stated purpose, publicity or general invitation. (viii) The standard time for comments on key decisions is one week before the decision meeting not three. (ix) Objects that the explanations given are grossly misleading. (x) No drawing is supplied and no indication is given that it is available at a library or Parish Council office, only a non-dimensional description is provided. (xi) The number exceeding 30mph is not given, told that 15% exceed 35mph, no statement of Police support included or whether speed checks discontinued when the chicanes were installed will be resumed. (xii) Local Transport Note 1/07 `Traffic Calming' is applicable government guidance and gives for a 30mph limit: · Speeds at a chicane should be 30mph or less. · The first chicane should be near the start of the 30mph and repeated at 60 to 90 metres. · Vehicles and pedestrians need to be segregated unless a 20mph limit. · Chicanes need to have general illumination. · Pedestrians should be deterred from crossing the road at the chicane angle. · Authorities are breaching the Crime and Disorder Act if the speed enforcement is not effective. (xiii) The proposed design enables the safe passage of 2.5m wide vehicles but not combine harvesters with up to 3.6m cutting width and other agricultural wide loads. (xiv) A buggy or wheelchair needs 0.8m. HCC legal state that without the chicanes are unsafe for pedestrians. It is not safe for pedestrians on and around the chicanes because wing mirrors of large vehicles at head height overhang the kerbs and white lines. (xv) The primary visual effect is from the hazard markers and kerbs. The overrun areas approximate the current space between the white lines and kerbs and make the permanent chicane angle that has been forced by speeding traffic. (xvi) Solar illumination of the give way signs does not identify pedestrians, particularly in the dazzle of oncoming traffic. (xvii) Local Transport Note 1/07 gives need for a cycle by-pass and at least 4 chicanes but the road geometry cannot accommodate these. (xviii) Carriageway sharing by pedestrians is only acceptable at speeds below 20mph. The hill is too narrow for a footway but it is wide enough to provide a continuous strip within which pedestrians have priority. (xix) Suggests that the chicanes and edge lines are removed and replaced with a 0.8m wide strip on one side delineated by a white rumble strip, in filled with red tarmac and regular speed checks reinstated. The consultation is misleading by not considering this option. (xx) The commenter plans to speak at the decision meeting and would like a copy of all the decision making papers. |
5 |
(i) Fully supports any decision to make permanent the calming measures in place and agrees that a significant reduction in the traffic speed has been achieved. (ii) You are admitting that traffic is still breaking the speed limit by 5mph, meaning that a significant amount is going faster than 35mph which offers the highest risk to pedestrians. (iii) The sign warning of pedestrians is positioned on the blind side of the corner giving no prior warning to speeding motorists. |
6 |
(i) The intention to make the current provisional permanent is most welcome. (ii) The main problem has been tractors driving over the construction opening up the width so the average drivers does not have to slow down, thus defeating the aim. (iii) There is an improvement with fewer HGVs coming through. (iv) Cannot agree with the findings concerning slower traffic, very few vehicles slow down in the rush hours unless there are oncoming vehicles. (v) Considers that the reinstatement of the centre lines would improve matters as an open road with side markings only acts as an invitation to speed. (vi) Alternatively the camera / 30 warning sign has been proved to slow traffic down and might be another tool for consideration. |
7 |
(i) Would like to praise the attempts to slow the traffic on Beeches Hill. (ii) Fully supports the plans to improve the existing traffic calming. (iii) Would like horse warning signs placed all the way up Beeches Hill from Vernon Hill as far as Little Ashton Lane as this area is used extensively by horse riders. (iv) Would like horse warning signs on the lower traffic calming as the current signs are not visible and this area is used as a horse / child crossing point. (v) Would like no parking yellow lines at the exits of private drives at the lower chicane. (vi) Would like electronic `SLOW DOWN' signs at least twice on the hill. |
8 |
(i) The stated reductions means more traffic using Ashton Lane and other lanes in the Upham area. (ii) The anti-skid surfaces indicated traffic will be breaking and accelerating to navigate the obstructing which is not good for the environment or safety. (iii) With roads in our area in desperate need for maintenance funds it seems ridiculous to spend the money on projects such as this. (iv) Would be more cost effective to let the Police take any necessary action to control speed and maintain the normal traffic flow on the Queens highway. |
9 |
(i) Begs that the permanent installation be made to work better than trial system that has blighted enjoyment of the area. (ii) Since installation has not felt safe walking on Beeches Hill. (iii) Has witnessed several minor collisions with vehicles negotiating the upper chicane. (iv) Stationary traffic in both directions due to cars coming up the hill trying to turn right obstructed by vehicles trying to descend but unable to do so. (v) The road is littered by loose concrete mono-blocks on many occasions. (vi) Has witnessed a commercial vehicle unable to continue until a car stopped at the give way line had shuffled back as the give way line is too close to the chicanes. (vii) Why do you have to have a priority for the ascending traffic? Surely there is no modern vehicle that has insufficient power to start on a hill. |
10 |
(i) Pleased to learn that the temporary chicanes will be made permanent as they have had an effect on traffic speed. (ii) Stated that kerbing will be shaped to ease the movement of agricultural vehicles through the chicanes. Can you assure me that this will not allow cars to be driven through faster. (iii) Noticed that there is a tendency for cars at the lower chicane to get through the chicane to speed up to get through the chicane which defeats the purpose of the chicanes. (iv) Is there any reason why an additional chicane could not be installed at the bottom of the hill. |