Title of Report: Traffic Regulation Orders
•
7.5 Tonnes Weight Restrictions Amendment
Various Roads, Arborfield, Emmbrook, Evendons, Hurst,
Norreys, Shinfield South
•
Station Road, A321 High Street & Waterman’s Way,
Wargrave -Prohibition of Waiting Proposal
Equalities Impact Assessment
The purpose of this assessment is to improve the work of the Council by making sure that
it does not discriminate against any individual or group and that, where possible, it
promotes equality. The Council has a legal duty to comply with equalities legislation and
this template enables you to consider the impact (positive or negative) a project may have
upon various equality target groups.
Positive Negative Neutral Detail of
Impact
Impact
Impact impact and
how it can be
mitigated
Gender
Men
Women
Ethnicity Asian or Asian British
Black or Black British
Gypsies/travelers
Irish
Mixed Race
Other minority ethnic
group
White
Disability Physical
Sensory
Learning Difficulties
Mental Health
Sexuality Bisexual
Lesbian
Gay
Transgender
Age
16-25
25-49
50+
Belief
Faith Groups
Those of no faith
Overall Conclusion: Impact on Equality Quantified
No impact on Equality.
Sustainability Appraisal
Sustainability is one of the Council’s cross-cutting themes and the Council has made a
corporate commitment to address the social, economic and environmental effects of
activities across al service areas. The purpose of this appraisal is to record any positive
or negative impacts this project is likely to have on each of the Council’s sustainability
themes.
Theme
Positive Negative Neutral
Detail of
(Potential impacts of the project)
Impact
Impact
Impact
impact and
how it can
be mitigated
Use of energy, water, minerals and
materials
Waste generation/sustainable waste
management
Pol ution to air, land and water
Factors that contribute to climate
change
Protection of and access to not rely
on the car
A strong diverse and sustainable
local economy
Meets local needs
Opportunities for education and
information
Provision of appropriate and
sustainable housing
Personal safety and reduced fear of
crime
Good health
Access to cultural and leisure
facilities
Social inclusion
Overall Conclusion: Impact on Sustainability Quantified
Mainly a neutral impact but with respect to the waiting proposal it wil meet the needs of
the local residents.
NOTICE OF
INDIVIDUAL EXECUTIVE MEMBER DECISION
ITEM NO.
IMD
TITLE
Traffic Regulation Orders
•
7.5 Tonnes Weight Restrictions Amendment
Various Roads, Arborfield, Emmbrook,
Evendons, Hurst, Norreys, Shinfield South
•
Station Road, A321 High Street &
Waterman’s Way, Wargrave -
Prohibition of Waiting Proposal
DECISION TO BE MADE BY
Cllr Keith Baker
DATE OF DECISION
REPORT TO BE PUBLISHED ON
INDIVIDUAL EXECUTIVE MEMBER DECISION
REFERENCE IMD:
TITLE
Traffic Regulation Orders
•
7.5 Tonnes Weight Restrictions Amendment
Various Roads, Arborfield, Emmbrook,
Evendons, Hurst, Norreys, Shinfield South
•
Station Road, A321 High Street &
Waterman’s Way, Wargrave -
Prohibition of Waiting Proposal
FOR CONSIDERATION BY
Executive Member for Highways and Transport
DATE
WARDS
Arborfield, Emmbrook, Evendons, Hurst, Norreys,
Shinfield South, Remenham, Wargrave and
Ruscombe.
REPORT PREPARED BY
Chris Redfern – Traffic Management
SUMMARY
To inform the Executive Member for Highways and Transport of Progress on the Traffic
Regulation Orders (TROs), and to inform on a review which has been undertaken to
update the weight restrictions that are no longer permitted on eleven minor (Class C or
unclassified) roads in the Wokingham Borough area
REASONS FOR DECISION
To enable the progression of the schemes.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, IF ANY
Do nothing. Other options for the Station Road, A321 High Street & Waterman’s
Way, Wargrave - Prohibition of Waiting Proposal are set out under the
Supporting Information section of this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) It is recommended that the Executive Member for Highways and Transport approve:
a) the amendment of the weight restriction to 7.5 tonnes on the fol owing roads:
• Eastheath Avenue, Evendons
• Holt Lane, Emmbrook
• Oaklands Drive, Evendons
• Bel Foundry Lane, Norreys
• Coppid Beech Hil (Service Road), Norreys
• Church Lane, Arborfield
• Commons Road, Emmbrook
• Lowther Road, Emmbrook
• Old Pound Lane, Hurst
• Road south of Old Pound Lane connecting B3030 and A321 Broadwater Lane,
Hurst
• Kybes Lane, Shinfield South,
b) the advertisement and formal consultation of the proposal,
c) consideration of any objections which may be received,
d) if no objections are received to authorise the introduction of the necessary
Traffic Regulation Order.
2) It is recommended that the Executive Member for Highways and Transport approve:
a) the instal ation of prohibition of waiting restrictions at the junctions of Station
Road, with High Street (A321) and Watermans Way, Wargrave, as shown on
drawing number 5049/398/A,
b) that the objectors be informed accordingly.
c) that no public inquires be held.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Revenue *
How much wil it Cost Is there sufficient budget (or grant
/ Save (*)? (1)
funding) available? – if not quantify the
Supplementary Estimate OR if savings,
also quantify. (2)
Current Financial Year
£6,100 Yes - 7.5 Tonnes weight restrictions
(Year 1)
amendment could be funded from the
2008/2009 revenue al ocation for
Highway Improvements schemes.
£1,800 Yes - Station Road, A321 High
Street & Waterman’s Way,
Wargrave is previously funded from
the 2008/2009 revenue al ocation for
Highway Improvements schemes.
Next Financial Year
£0 Yes. No future financial implications.
(Year 2)
Fol owing Financial
£0 Yes. No future financial implications.
Year (Year 3)
Capital *
How much wil it Cost Is there sufficient budget (or grant
/ Save(*)? (1)
funding) available? – if not quantify the
Supplementary Estimate OR if savings,
also quantify. (2)
Current Financial Year
£0 Yes. No financial implications.
(Year 1)
Next Financial Year
£0 Yes. No future financial implications.
(Year 2)
Fol owing Financial
£0 Yes. No future financial implications.
Year (Year 3)
Years 4 – 10
£0 Yes. No future financial implications.
(10 year capital vision)
Other relevant financial information relevant to the Recommendation/Decision
The schemes do not have any other financial implications.
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Corporate Head of Finance – Graham Ebers: No response
Monitoring Officer – Susanne Nelson-Wehrmyer: No response
Leader of the Council – Frank Browne: No response
Town and Parish Councils:
• Wokingham Town Council: Are in agreement
• Aborfield Parish Council: No response
• Hurst Parish Council: Are in agreement
• Shinfield Parish Council: Are in agreement
• Wargrave Parish Council: No response
Local Ward Members
Evendons
• Dianne King: In agreement
• Mr D Morgan: No response
• Chris Bowring: No response
Emmbrook
• Ul akarin Clark: No response
• Debbie Lewis: No response
• Philip Mirfin: In agreement
Arborfield
• Gary Cowan: No response
Hurst
• Annette Drake: No response
Norreys
• Alistair Auty: No response
• Iain Browne: In agreement
• David Lee: No response
Shinfield South
• Malcolm Bryant: No response
• Barrie Patman: No response
• Mr A Pol ock: No response
Remenham, Wargrave and Ruscombe
• Frank Browne: No response
• John Kersley: No response
Impact on Equality
No impact on Equality.
Impact on Sustainability
Mainly a neutral impact but with respect to the waiting proposal it wil meet the needs of
the local residents.
List of Background Papers
Copies of advertisements, consultation letters and letters of objection.
Held by Rob McDonnel – Senior Traffic
Service Environment
Management Engineer
Telephone No 0118 974 6331
Email rob.mcdonnel @wokingham.gov.uk
Date 20th March 2008
Version No. 1
Date 9th March 2008
Version No. 2
Date 1st May 2008
Version No. 3
NB All reports seek to identify environmental, community safety, customer care
and equal opportunities implications. Consultation with residents and
organisations which has or is about to take place, will also be reported.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
An explanation of each of the proposed TROs is on the fol owing pages. Drawing
5049/398/A is included for information.
In addition Appendix A sets out the objections received.
7.5 Tonnes Weight Restrictions Amendment - Various Roads, Arborfield,
Emmbrook, Evendons, Hurst, Norreys, Shinfield South
1
A review has been undertaken to update the weight restrictions that are no longer
permitted on eleven minor (Class C or unclassified) roads in the Wokingham
Borough area which have either 2 tonnes, 3 tons or 3 tonnes weight restrictions. It
has recently come to the attention of Officers that the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2002 now only permit weight restriction signs of 7.5 or 18 tonnes
on public highways. Indeed, Regulation 3(2)(c) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 1994 stated that signs with maximum weights other than the
aforementioned restrictions (with the exception of Weak Bridge maximum gross
weight limit signs) wil cease to have effect after 1st January 2005.
2
It is proposed for a Traffic Regulation Order be drafted referring to the respective
Orders currently in place for roads with weight limits of 2 tonnes, 3 tons or 3 tonnes.
These restrictions would then change to a limit of 7.5 tonnes to ensure consistency
and compliance of al roads with weight restrictions in Wokingham Borough with the
current legal requirement. The roads affected are listed below:
Eastheath Avenue, Evendons
Holt Lane, Emmbrook
Oaklands Drive, Evendons
Bel Foundry Lane, Norreys
Coppid Beech Hil (Service Road), Norreys
Church Lane, Arborfield
Commons Road, Emmbrook
Lowther Road, Emmbrook
Old Pound Lane, Hurst
Road south of Old Pound Lane connecting B3030 and A321 Broadwater
Lane, Hurst
Kybes Lane, Shinfield South
Financial implications
3
These works are estimated to cost:
Advert Cost
£1,100
Engineering Cost
£5,000
Total
£6,100.00
The cost could be funded from the 2007 – 2008 revenue al ocation for Highway
Improvement schemes.
Recommendation
4
It is recommended that the Executive Member for Highways and Transport
approve
a) the amendment of the weight restriction to 7.5 tonnes on the fol owing roads:
• Eastheath Avenue, Evendons
• Holt Lane, Emmbrook
• Oaklands Drive, Evendons
• Bel Foundry Lane, Norreys
• Coppid Beech Hil (Service Road), Norreys
• Church Lane, Arborfield
• Commons Road, Emmbrook
• Lowther Road, Emmbrook
• Old Pound Lane, Hurst
• Road south of Old Pound Lane connecting B3030 and A321 Broadwater
Lane, Hurst
• Kybes Lane, Shinfield South
b) the advertisement and formal consultation of the proposal,
c) consideration of any objections which may be received
d) if no objections are received to authorise the introduction of the necessary
Traffic Regulation Order.
Station Road, A321 High Street & Waterman’s Way, Wargrave
Prohibition of Waiting Proposal
5
A proposal for prohibition of waiting restrictions in Station Road, A321 High Street
and Waterman’s Way, Wargrave was original y drafted in 2006 because of reports
of station users parking their vehicles in Station Road rather than Wargrave Station
Car Park. It had been concluded that this parking on the road was causing road
safety concerns and so proposals for waiting restrictions had been designed to
resolve those concerns.
6
However, local residents objected to the original proposal on the grounds that the
major concern is not cars but large articulated vehicles trying to negotiate the
junction with A321 High Street which are obstructed in this manoeuvre by parked
cars or vans along the narrow section of Station Road. When this occurs it makes it
impossible for residents and emergency vehicles to gain access. A similar turning
problem for large vehicles exists at the junction of Station Road and Waterman’s
Way. The objectors also expressed their concern about the reduction in available
parking, especial y when there is an event at the Church or Boat Club, and the
subsequent relocation of this parking to areas that are unsuitable for the number of
displaced vehicles.
7
Based on the number of substantive comments received the proposed restrictions
were amended to protect the junctions of A321 High Street/Station Road and
Station Road/Waterman’s Way, whilst leaving the remaining sections of Station
Road un-restricted for parking. The new proposal has been designed to al ow
adequate sightlines for vehicles negotiating the junctions and also to remove
parking within the narrow sections of road. This should al ow easier and safer
access, particularly for Heavy Goods Vehicles. The new proposal is shown on
drawing number 5049/398/A.
8
The new proposal was advertised on 5th Dec 2007 and the objection period expired
on 3rd January 2008. During this time two objections and nine supportive
comments were received and are detailed in Appendix A. One objection was due to
the fact that the junctions do not have an accident or congestion history, and the
particular resident did not object to vehicles parking in Station Road. The other
objection was due to concern that parking at the western end of Station Road would
shift to locations opposite other properties which could create obstructions.
However, it has long been established that parking is causing problems particularly
for manoeuvres of large vehicles at the two junctions. Also the restrictions proposed
at the western end of Station Road would move the available legal parking further
from the station entrance and so should at least encourage train users to use the
(currently free) station car park when space is available.
9
Five of the residents ful y supporting the scheme expressed their additional wish for
the restriction to be extended at the eastern end of Station Road by a few yards
beyond Mil Green and Romans Walk. This is because parking congestion around
these exits is, they report, occasional y causing near-misses. A single other
comment received was a request to extend the Station Road restriction from
Waterman’s Way eastwards across the boat club foot/cycle path exit.
10
Thames Val ey Police have expressed their support for the new scheme.
11
It is considered that the proposed waiting restrictions are located on lengths of road
that wil help to solve the current road safety and traffic turning problems whilst
removing minimal available parking space. There may also be some safety benefit
in satisfying requests made by several residents to further extend the double yel ow
lines at the eastern end of Station Road across Mil Green. However, if it is decided
to proceed with this it wil be necessary to re-advertise the amended proposal with
further time and cost implications.
Financial implications
12
These works are estimated to cost:
Advert Cost
£1,200
Engineering Cost
£ 600
Total
£1,800.00
The cost is previously funded from the 2007/2008 revenue al ocation for Highway
Improvements schemes.
Recommendation
13
That the Executive Member for Highways and Transport approve:
a) the instal ation of prohibition of waiting restrictions at the junctions of Station
Road, with High Street (A321) and Watermans Way, Wargrave, as shown
on drawing number 5049/398/A,
b) that the objectors be informed accordingly.
APPENDIX A
Prohibition and Restriction of Waiting Proposal for Station Road,
A321 High Street and Waterman’s Way, Wargrave
Letter from
Comment/Objection
Officer Comment
A Station Road
OBJECTS to the scheme as it could create greater safety
Comments noted but
resident.
risk for residents on the north side of Station Road as cars
unsure that many
wil regularly park opposite their properties (west of
motorists wil be
Waterman’s Way). He requests DYLs on south side from
displaced.
station for ~50m only.
A Station Road
OBJECTS as considers plan is inappropriate as junctions
Comments noted. An
resident.
do not have an accident or congestion history, and he has
injury accident occurred
no objection to users of the church, boat club or station
at Station Road junction
parking outside his property.
with High Street in 2005.
A Station Road
OBJECTS to lines around Waterman’s Way as undesirable
Comments noted,
resident.
but
SUPPORTS restrictions at High Street end of Station
though Waterman’s Way
Road, though on south side should be extended to Field
lines are desirable to
House to ensure turnings into Mil Green are safer by
‘protect’ this junction.
clearing parked vehicles.
A Station Road
SUPPORTS but the DYLs at the High Street end do not go
Comments noted.
resident.
far enough - should be extended on south side as far as
Field House to ensure turnings into Mil Green, entry to
church and the concealed entry to Romans Walk are safer
by clearing parked vehicles.
A Waterman’s
SUPPORTS but as above.
Comments noted.
Way resident.
A Waterman’s
SUPPORTS but as above.
Comments noted.
Way resident.
A Waterman’s
SUPPORTS but as above.
Comments noted.
Way resident.
A Waterman’s
SUPPORTS but at western end of Station Road should
Comments noted.
Way resident.
NOT extend to the station as this section used for parking
by residents of Loddon Drive when their access under the
rail bridge is flooded.
A Waterman’s
SUPPORTS but would like DYLs extended from
Comments noted.
Way resident.
Waterman’s Way on northern side of Station Road to the
boat club foot/cycle path on Station Road.
A Waterman’s
SUPPORTS ful y.
Way resident.
A Waterman’s
SUPPORTS ful y.
Way resident.