Meeting documents

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director Environment, Infrastructure and Economy on the advertisement of a proposal for the implementation of a Puffin pedestrian crossing on Broad Street, Lyme Regis in facilitating the crossing of the road by a controlled means. Following the advertisement of the proposals, 57 representations had been received, primarily objections, on the basis that the crossing would erode already limited on street limited parking provision; spaces which were much in demand for accessing the businesses in the town centre and also would cause tailbacks and congestion.

The proposed crossing had been requested by Lyme Regis Town Council following a local campaign for a safer crossing point to be installed, particularly for less able pedestrians and vulnerable road users. As primary consultees, West Dorset District Council,  Dorset Police and the County Councillor for Marshwood Vale all agreed the proposals should be advertised. However, as a consequence of the objections received, the Committee was now being asked to consider whether the proposals should be recommended to Cabinet for implementation, as advertised.

With the aid of a visual presentation, and having regard to the provisions of the Update Sheet and Statements from Third Parties provided to members prior to the meeting and appended to these minutes, officers showed where the crossing was advertised to be sited, the characteristics and configuration of Broad Street; what access arrangements were affected on the surrounding road network; what parking could be retained, including disabled parking provision; the part the bus stop arrangements played in how parking provision was able to be managed in the road; the setting of the crossing within the townscape and what amenities and facilities would be served by the crossing. Officers also explained what other options had been considered for alternative locations and what reasons there were for these being deemed to be either unachievable or impractical. Effectively the only point at which a crossing could be situated to meet the needs of users and in meeting the engineering practicalities of doing so to ensure the necessary regulations were complied with was adjacent to No.20 Broad Street.

Having received such a significant number of objections to the proposal, and having made an assessment of the benefits and otherwise of pursuing the proposals, officers were now recommending that in light of the objections, whilst a crossing could well be beneficial to pedestrians, those benefits were considered to be outweighed by the loss of much needed on street parking, which could lead to an adverse effect on the viability of businesses and could result in increased air pollution from stationary traffic. Given that the availably of parking provision was limited, the loss of 4/5 spaces to provide for the installation of a crossing, was considered to be detrimental and not necessarily justifiable. Furthermore as traffic speeds were low, whilst a crossing could well assist in some cases, it was not considered to be essential on road safety grounds. On that basis, officers were now recommending that the Cabinet should not support the introduction of the crossing.

The County Councillor for Marshwood Vale noted the assessment made by officers and the reasoning for coming to their recommendation. Whilst he was provided with the opportunity to address the Committee as local member, he declined as he wished to have the opportunity to do so at Cabinet.

The opportunity was provided for members of the public to address the Committee and they first heard from Cheryl Reynolds, Lyme Regis Town Councillor, who considered the crossing to be necessary and would prove to be advantageous for those more vulnerable road users, particularly those with mobility issues and those visiting during the busy summer season.  She considered that more parking provision could be achieved by relocating the bus stop and that congestion and air quality concerns were not necessarily significant. She also made reference to a petition containing 600 signatories supporting these measures. (Officers understood this petition had been submitted to the Town Council and had played a part in that Council’s original support).

Lizzie Wiscombe’s views were expressed on her behalf by Councillor Reynolds, in explaining that as she had very limited visibility, a crossing would assist her invaluably and would be a beneficial asset to the town as a whole.  As it stood, there was seemingly no recognition of what needs disabled or other vulnerable road users had and the installation of the crossing would go some considerable way to addressing this so that they were no longer disadvantaged. Given the lack of disabled parking spaces available, she too considered that the relocation of the bus stop could contribute to more spaces being identified. She said that traders often used the parking spaces and said that there had been five injuries, with one being serious, of people trying to cross Broad Street.

As part of their public participation, Cheryl Reynolds and Lizzie Wiscombe both submitted statements complementing their respective addresses to Committee; these being included as part of the statements of third Parties to these minutes.

The Committee were then provided with the opportunity to ask questions of the officer’s presentation and about what they had heard and officer’s provided clarification in respect of the points raised, as necessary.

The practicalities of siting the crossing elsewhere was discussed and the reasoning understood for why this had to be limited to being outside No.20. What provision had been made for minimising the loss of parking spaces was also recognised.

Some members were of the view that the officer’s recommendation should be supported given the strength of local feeling following its advertisement and in supporting the viability of local businesses. It was suggested that other, uncontrolled crossing provision could be achievable, if at all practicable, and officers were asked to see what this might entail. However other members considered that the loss of parking was not as significant as claimed given the availability of three, off street car parks in the vicinity which could comfortably accommodate any displaced parking.

The Senior Solicitor confirmed that any decision taken had to be based on the proposals before members and that any alternative would require the process to start afresh and consulted upon accordingly.

A proposal was made, and seconded, not to make an Order based on the reasons given in the officer’s report, but with a request for officers to look at other solutions to assist pedestrians, particularly the less able, to cross Broad Street.

Other members of the Committee were on the view that, on balance, the provision of a crossing and the benefits this brought in terms of road safety, assurance and accessibly, outweighed the loss of parking provision, particularly given the demographic profile of the town and visitors to it. There appeared to be little compelling evidence that air pollution would deteriorate significantly as a result or that congestion would worsen either. 

Given this, the Committee considered that they had a responsibility to ensure that every opportunity was taken to improve road safety where practicable and that the introduction of a Puffin crossing would go some considerable way to achieving this. There was a recognition amongst members that the perception and judgement of some vulnerable road users in being able to cross a road safely and confidently varied considerably from those who were more able to do so. There should be an acknowledgement that any assistance that could be given in doing this should be taken.

The Committee also took the opportunity to address how the issue of the management of the bus stop arrangements might be achieved as a means of compensating for those spaces lost to the crossing’s installation and in providing for more parking opportunities. This was referred to in paragraph 1.8 of the report, together with what progress had been made in that regard. Officers were asked to see how this might be achieved, if at all practicable, but should not be conditional on their recommendation being progressed. 

Following this discussion, the original proposal was withdrawn by the proposer and seconder and a new proposal was made and seconded for a recommendation to Cabinet to proceed with the implementation of the crossing and a request for officers to look at providing additional on street parking elsewhere, for example, by moving the location of the bus stop.