Meeting documents

In the absence of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, the Committee elected a Chairman from amongst those present to preside for the meeting. Accordingly, it was

Resolved

That Councillor Margaret Phipps be elected as Chairman for the meeting.

The Chairman took the opportunity to welcome the new composition of the Committee and especially those newly elected Councillors who were now serving on it. Thanks was also extended to those previous members of the Committee who were no longer serving Councillors, to whom letters of thanks for their valued contribution to the work of the Committee were being sent.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Jones, Byron Quayle and Jon Andrews.

Councillors are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 regarding disclosable pecuniary interests.

§     Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member or other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary interest.

§     Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done on the form available from the clerk within 28 days).

§     Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the County Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of a dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item.

The Register of Interests is available on Dorsetforyou.com and the list of disclosable pecuniary interests is set out on the reverse of the form.

With reference to minute 36, Councillor Mary Penfold confirmed that she had previously been instrumental in consideration of the DTEP scheme as a West Dorset District Councillor. Given this, when the item was considered, Councillor Penfold withdrew from the meeting and did not take part in the debate.

With reference to minute 37, a general interest was declared by Councillor Shane Bartlett - as one of the two local County Council members - in that, whilst Wimborne Minster Town Council had considered the matter, he had not come to a view. As this was not a disclosable pecuniary interest, Councillor Bartlett remained in the meeting and took part in the debate.

With reference to minute 38,  Councillor Mary Penfold confirmed that she had previously been involved in discussion about the proposed crossing facilities in Bridport and in that respect had made a representation in connection with it as a West Dorset District Councillor, but had not been involved in coming to any decision about it. Given this, when the item was considered Councillor Penfold withdrew from the meeting and did not take part in the debate.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2017 (attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2017 were confirmed and signed.

Public Speaking

To receive any public questions and or public statements or requests to speak in accordance with Standing Order 21 (2).

Public Speaking

There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

To note the Terms of Reference of the Committee (attached).

The Committees Terms of Reference were received and noted.

To consider a report by the Service Director – Highways and Emergency Planning (attached).

(Councillor Mary Penfold confirmed that as she had previously been instrumental in consideration of the DTEP scheme as a West Dorset District Councillor she would play no part in the discussion of this item and left the Committee Room for the duration of consideration of the item)

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director – Highways and Emergency Planning which explained the proposals to introduce waiting and loading restrictions on High West Street and High East Street, Dorchester as part of an enhancement scheme for the town centre, in contributing towards traffic management improvements as part of the Dorchester Transport and Environment Plan (DTEP). Following Cabinet’s decision to pare back the original DTEP scheme, certain key elements of DTEP, such as these improvement works, continued to be progressed. 

Members were informed that the proposals were designed to remove the existing ‘Pay and Display’ parking on the northern side of High West Street - between Glyde Path Road and Trinity Street - and to widen the footway, in order to accommodate a disabled access to the Shire Hall Heritage Centre and improve its setting within the townscape.  The introduction of a peak-time loading ban along both high streets, between their junctions with Alington Street and Icen Way, was also being proposed in order to reduce traffic congestion and thereby contribute towards the improvement of air quality over that length. 

Advertisement of the proposals had resulted in an objection and representations being received and  given this there was an obligation for Committee to decide on how to proceed. Accordingly, the Committee was now being asked to give these due consideration and whether the proposed restrictions should be recommended to Cabinet for implementation, as advertised. The objection received considered that the proposed arrangements would be detrimental to their ability to load and unload in the vicinity of their property and their needs would be best served by dedicated parking bays for residents only. However officers considered that the proposals were, on balance, the best achievable in meeting competing needs and addressed the issues being experienced.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained the reasoning behind the need to impose the loading and waiting restrictions and the basis of the objection and representations received. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. These showed where the proposals would be situated, the character of the roads, their setting within the townscape and the relationship between the roads and commercial and residential properties. How the improvements were designed to benefit road capacity along the high street, particularly during peak traffic periods, and enhance the setting of the historic listed buildings alongside the road were described.

Officers confirmed that the proposed measures were necessary in order to realise the scheme’s objective of improving access for all road users,  particularly taking into account the needs of vulnerable road users and would benefit the unimpeded flow of traffic, as far as was practicable, through the town centre.

The Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

To consider a report by the Service Director – Highways and Emergency Planning (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director - Highways and Emergency Planning on proposals to implement waiting restrictions on various roads in Wimborne on road safety grounds and in the interests of maintaining the free flow of traffic around the roundabout at the Rowlands Hill, Cranfield Avenue and St. John’s Hill junction. The proposals were designed to alleviate the on street parking which occurred, for convenience, at that point. Following the proposals being advertised, two objections had been received raising concerns that limiting parking opportunities was detrimental to their parking needs and was considered unnecessary. However officers considered that the proposals were, on balance, the best achievable in meeting competing needs and addressed the issues being experienced. Consequently, the Committee was now being asked to give consideration to those objections and decide whether the proposals should be implemented, as advertised. As no objections to the proposals for East Street and Brook Road had been received as a result of advertisement, the Committee were informed that the implementation of these could be progressed in any event.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained the reasoning behind the need to impose the waiting restrictions and the basis of the objections received. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed where the proposals would be situated, the character, configuration and topography of the roads and their setting within the townscape. It also showed the relationship between the roads and commercial and residential properties and the effect that displaced parking was having on the roundabout at the Rowlands Hill, Cranfield Avenue and St. John’s Hill junction.

Whilst there was no evidence of any reported accidents around the roundabout, the purpose of the proposals was to deter inconsiderate parking at that point in order to ensure that the junction of St Johns Hill with Cranfield Avenue and at the roundabout was kept clear of parked cars. This was designed to improve visibility, keep this bus route free from unnecessary obstructions and generally improve road safety so that there was no need for vehicles to have to veer to the middle of the road to avoid any obstacle. Furthermore, in order that cars did not park at the request bus stops in St Johns Hill, the proposals extended to include these.

The proposals had been supported by the local members for Colehill West and  Wimborne Minster and for Colehill East and Stapehill; Wimborne Minster Town Council and Dorset Police. Councillor Shane Bartlett welcomed the proposals as advertised, considering them to be necessary on the grounds of road safety and moved their acceptance by Committee.

The Committee heard from local resident Tony Worth who was wholly in favour of the proposals being implemented on road safety grounds, particularly in that they were designed to avoid traffic from having to manoeuvre their vehicles to negotiate obstacles that compromised their safe passage.

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions of the officer’s presentation and took this opportunity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

To consider a report by the Service Director – Highways and Emergency Planning (attached).

(Councillor Mary Penfold confirmed that as she had previously been involved in discussion about the proposed crossing facilities in Bridport and had previously made a representation in connection with it as a West Dorset District Councillor, but had not been involved in coming to any decision about it. Given this, she played no part in the discussion of this item and left the Committee Room for the duration of consideration of the item)

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director – Highways and Emergency Planning on a proposal for the implementation of a Toucan Crossing facility on East Road, Bridport as a key link in developing a Bridport Wide cycle network. Following the advertisement of the proposals, objections had been received on the basis that the crossing was being sited too close to the East Road/A35(T) roundabout and consequently this would cause tailbacks and congestion, with its associated pollution issues  and the concern that such congestion would potentially block private road access to garages. Consequently, the Committee was now being asked to consider the objections received and whether the proposal should be recommended to Cabinet for implementation, as advertised.

The Committee were informed that the Toucan crossing was part of a wider improvement scheme around the East Road/A35(T) roundabout to improve safety for non-motorised users. With the aid of a visual presentation, officers described the need for the crossing; inthat it was designed to improve road safety and access for vulnerable road users  crossing East Road.  It was considered to be an integral part of a route which would link West Bay to the south and Bradpole to the north, with the longer term aspiration of providing a trailway link northwards.

The route was designed to provide a safe, off-road route linking the beaches and facilities in West Bay to local businesses, shops, supermarkets, schools and residential areas.  As well as providing a sustainable footway/cycleway route for residents, it would also enable visitors and holiday makers the option to walk or cycle rather than having to use their vehicles, thereby helping to reduce congestion.

Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration showing where the crossing was proposed to be situated, its relationship with the roundabout, the bridge over the River Asker residential properties - particularly No. 6 East Street, outside which it was proposed to be located - and other amenities in the area.

The project was being promoted by Highway England, who were funding the proposals, with the support of Bridport Town Council and Sustrans, with the County Council designing the scheme. The local County Council members for Bridport  - Ros Kayes and Keith Day - were both wholly supportive of the proposals, considering them to be integral to improving road safety and the needs of vulnerable road users. Councillor Day moved that the proposal be recommended to Cabinet on that basis.

In response to the objections received, officers considered that there was the potential for some minimal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Dates of future meetings of the Committee during 2017:-

·         Thursday 22 June (Reserve)

·         Thursday 13 July

·         Thursday 17 August (Reserve)

·         Thursday 7 September

·         Thursday 28 September (Reserve)

·         Thursday 19 October

·         Thursday 16 November (Reserve)

·         Thursday 7 December

All meeting are scheduled to start at 10.00 am.

The dates of future meetings of the Committee in 2017 were noted. There was agreement that the reserve date on Thursday 22 June would be used  for the benefit of holding a mock Committee meeting, starting at 10.00 am, to better familiarise members with particular issues that they were likely to be asked to consider in time, which might well be followed by a business meeting that morning.

To answer any questions received in writing by the Chief Executive by not later than 10.00am on Friday 26 May 2017.

No questions were received from members under Standing Order 20(2).