PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
St Helier Street Life Programme
CHARING CROSS PHASE TWO
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is for the Ministers for Planning and Environment and Transport and Technical Services to consider, in consultation with the Connetable of St Helier and Chairman of the Urban Task Force, Simon Crowcroft, the outcome from consultation in relation to proposed Phase Two pedestrian improvements at Charing Cross and Broad Street.
Having regard to the consultation response, the purpose of the report is for the Ministers to determine;
whether to progress the scheme to implementation, and if minded to progress;
to determine the form of the scheme to be implemented;
to authorise the expenditure of monies.
This proposal is supported by Policy TT8 of the 2002 Island Plan and contributes toward the policy objectives of the Sustainable Travel and Transport Plan and States Strategic Plan 2005-2010. It is also identified as one of the projects to be progressed under the auspices of the St Helier Urban Task Group, pending the development of the St Helier Regeneration Strategy.
Background
A scheme to deliver highway safety and pedestrian improvements in Charing Cross and Broad Street was approved, as a draft for public consultation by both the former Environment and Public Services Committee (minute of 17 November 2005) and the Transport and Technical Services Minister (MD-T-2006-0024) on 17 November 2005 and 29 March 2006 respectively. The matter was also considered and endorsed by the Urban Task Force on 23 January 2006.
The scheme that formed the basis of consultation is attached at Appendix 1.
A preliminary budget allocation of £75,000 was approved from the Urban Renewal budget by the Environment and Public Services Committee on 17 November 2005.
Consultation on the draft proposals has been undertaken with all addressees in the area as well as a number of interest groups and individuals, including a number of people with disabilities. Details were loaded onto the States website and displayed on site at Charing Cross as well as being advertised in the Jersey Evening Post. The formal eight week consultation period was between 14 March and 05 May 2006.
19 written responses (copied at appendix 2) and two telephone comments (summarised at appendix 2) were received in addition to which further correspondence has been received from the Connetable of St Helier and the Parish of St Helier’s Roads Committee (at appendix 3). One informal meeting has been held with a representative of a local business.
Discussion
The response to the consultation has been mixed with both support for the implementation of the current and/or an amended, more extensive scheme and calls for the scheme or elements of it to be withdrawn and the proposed expenditure saved. These latter comments were generally founded on the following points:
o the work is unnecessary: crossing distances are short and traffic is slow;
o the area has been improved already;
o money is short, so why spend it here?
On the basis that the scheme accords with strategic and detailed objectives of the States to enhance pedestrian safety, improve the amenity and character of the urban environment, and to enhance the vitality of the town; is endorsed by the Urban Task Force; and has resources allocated to enable its implementation, the comments that the scheme be withdrawn are noted, but are not considered to be of sufficient import to cause the scheme to be abandoned or withdrawn: they do, however, question whether the scheme should be amended and are considered in more detail below.
The discussion below thus focuses on the principal issues to emerge from the consultation about how the scheme might be amended, which are as follows;
Table-tops and crossings
The predominant public comment about the treatment of the area around Charing Cross – which is proposed to involve the raising of the carriageway to that of the footpath and to install two Jersey crossings (see drawing at appendix 1) – can be summarised as ‘why do it?’ on the basis that;
o the area has been improved already;
o crossing distances are short, traffic is slow and crossing is not difficult. The table-top treatment is unnecessary and if formal crossings are needed, only one should suffice;
o the States should not be spending money unnecessarily.
In considering these points, the following factors are of relevance;
o Whilst the area has already been improved dramatically by the work that has been undertaken already potential still exists to provide the pedestrian with greater priority in this area – in accord with States policy objectives – by further calming traffic at what is a key gateway to the town centre and what will become an increasingly busy pedestrian route, providing a key link to the Waterfront. This can be achieved by the introduction of the table-top junction and formal crossing facilities;
o Comment has been made that the introduction of two ‘Jersey’ crossings (a Zebra crossing without belisha beacons) in the locality is unnecessary and that one should suffice. This view is supported on the grounds that – as has been clear from the treatment of the junction of Beresford Street and Halkett Place – the installation of one crossing that is at the ‘upstream’ end of where people want and do cross, creates breaks in the traffic when the crossing is used which allow people ‘downstream’ to cross safely;
o Aside from the pure highway safety justification for carrying out the scheme, it is considered that the treatment of the area – by comprehensively raising the level of the carriageway to that of the footpath – changes the character of the area visually and creates a much better townscape and quality of public space that is conducive to pedestrian activity and movement;
o This element of the scheme is costed at £10,000. It is thus considered to be good value;
o The further comprehensive enhancement of the area is supported by local business on the basis that work of this nature bolsters footfall and pedestrian activity and is thus helpful to business, retail activity and contributes to the enhancement of the vitality of the town.
On the basis of the above, it is considered that the proposed table-top treatment of the area around Charing Cross should remain but that consideration is given the removal of one of the proposed ‘Jersey’ crossings and that the scheme is amended accordingly.
It is also relevant to note that the scheme ought to reflect that amendment made earlier by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to ensure that the surface treatment prior to the remaining first ‘Jersey’ crossing is black asphalt rather than a coloured aggregate, as originally proposed. This amendment is shown at Appendix 4.
Use of roadspace
The biggest issue to arise from the consultation is how best to use limited road space in Broad Street in the face of competing demands. This has been manifest in the form of a proposal – from Bellini’s and the Blue Note Bar – to establish additional al fresco areas on-street, with implications for the existing arrangements for the use of road space.
This proposal, set out at appendix 5, seeks to:
o Raise the level of the delivery bays and parking bays on the north side of Broad Street to that of the pavement;
o Rearrange the current layout and management of loading bays and disabled parking in Broad Street, maintaining the current level of provision but providing a time-limited loading bay immediately to the south of Bellini’s and the Blue Note Bar such that it could be used for unloading between the hours of midnight and 10am, after which its use would revert to pavement (with the potential for al fresco use: subject to the award of planning permission and al fresco licences).
This proposal is supported by the Connetable and the Parish of St Helier’s Roads Committee (see appendix 3).
The implications of this proposal, requiring attention and consideration, are set out below;
o There is intense pressure for limited space in the town centre and it is important that the right balance is struck between the provision of space for competing uses. Both disabled parking provision and the use of loading/unloading facilities are heavily used here and it is considered important that the level of provision is maintained;
o From discussion between officers of T&TS and representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, particularly those representing retailers and logistics companies, it is clear that there is a requirement to maintain the number of central town delivery bays, and to maintain the larger of these to ensure that, where necessary, larger vehicles can access them. Any removal of the amount of space or the duration of time that delivery space is available in Broad Street is considered to be problematic and prejudicial to the servicing of the area of detriment to the viability of retail activity in the area;
o The level of the disabled space has just been increased in Broad Street (two 20 minute spaces have been replaced to accommodate some displaced disabled parking space from Conway Street). It is not considered desirable to reduce the level of disabled parking space unless alternative provision, of equal quality in terms of its accessibility and central location, can be made.
o The primary objective of the St Helier Street Life Programme, in all the work that has been done to date, has been to enhance facilities for the pedestrian. A secondary objective has been to enhance the quality and environment in the town which, in some instances, has also provided economic opportunities in the form of the provision of al fresco dining. Whilst this is beneficial in terms of the vitality and viability of the town – it adds colour and life to the town centre – it has not been the primary motivation for the expenditure of tax payer’s money in schemes funded by the St Helier Street Life Programme.
It has thus been an incidental benefit of the work that has been undertaken and, it is considered, it should remain a secondary consideration as it is not the principal justification for spending public money (the Parish of St Helier has taken a different view and has funded schemes which have been based solely on the basis of providing al fresco dining – at Bean Around the World and City in Halkett Place).
On the basis of the above, it is considered, in this particular instance, that the need to maintain a viable and serviceable town centre, and the need to retain centrally located disabled parking provision should enjoy a greater priority than proposals to establish more al fresco dining in Broad Street.
Notwithstanding the above, however, it is also considered that there may be potential to provide additional al fresco dining to the east of Bellini’s and the Blue Note Bar (in Ruette Haguais where the establishment already has some al fresco use) which would more appropriately complement the existing uses of public space in Broad Street without affecting parking provision or delivery bays. It would, it is believed, also provide a more attractive facility that is not immediately adjacent to parked cars and/or moving traffic.
There are, however, issues associated with maintaining adequate space for pedestrian flow between King Street and Broad Street relative to the amount of space that is available in Ruette Haguais. Part of this space is taken up by a large tree planter containing a fine maple tree. Whilst the tree makes an important contribution to the amenity of the area and, with regular pruning, probably has a further life of 10-20 years, it is considered appropriate that work be undertaken to establish the potential of its replacement directly into the ground (which would remove the tree planter) on the grounds of opening up more space here for pedestrian flow and the potential for additional al fresco use.
Any proposed replacement of the tree would need to be the subject of consultation having regard to the concern that was raised in relation to the proposed removal of some of the existing trees in Broad Street.
Should such work appear viable, it is considered appropriate that a private sector contribution be sought in respect of any such works.
Other issues
Other issues raised during the consultation are not considered to be of sufficient weight to justify amendment to the scheme. The issues, and the justification for this position, are set out at appendix 6.
Conclusions
On the basis of the above, and having regard to the representations received, it is considered that the scheme should proceed to implementation but with the following amendment;
o the removal of one of the proposed ‘Jersey’ crossings (between the space occupied by the ‘Crapaud’ column and the CICS building);
o the surface treatment prior to the remaining first ‘Jersey’ crossing is black asphalt rather than a coloured aggregate, as originally proposed.
It is considered that there are overriding reasons to maintain the use of road space in Broad Street as exists, but that further work be undertaken to explore the viability of providing more space for pedestrian flow and potential al fresco use in Ruette Haguais, with a view to this being incorporated into the scheme, subject to consultation, cost and the availability of resources.
Timescale
Subject to securing an endorsement to proceed to implementation, the following timescale and budgetary provision is proposed.
Milestone | Timescale |
Further work undertaken to explore potential amendment to scheme involving works in Ruette Haguais, with consent of Roads Committee where required. | July - August |
Feedback to consultees about amended scheme | July |
Start on site at end of summer embargo | 18 September – 17 November |
Resurfacing and table top crossings (2 week road closure) | 20 November – 01 December |
Surface dressing table tops (1-2 days road closure) | Spring 2007 |
Budget
The preparation of detailed drawings of the draft consultation scheme has enabled a more accurate cost assessment to be prepared. It is relevant to note that partnership with the Parish of St Helier, and the contribution of parish labour without charge, has the potential of reducing the cost of this scheme considerably (by approx. £20,000). However amendments to the Conway Street project phasing may negate this potential saving as the labour from the Parish may be required to complete Conway Street during the same period. Accordingly the budget should be established against the higher figure while the officers pursue further options regarding the use of the Parish labour.
Item | Cost |
Main contract (labour (excl PoSH), plant, materials) | 59,090 |
Table top construction | 9,030 |
Project Management & Supervision | 6,981 |
Publicity (advertising) | 1,500 |
Total | 76,601 |
On the basis of the quality and durability of their workmanship and the potential to secure free labour through joint-working with the Parish of St Helier Direct Labour Organisation, it is proposed to award the main contract to implement this work to Transport and Technical Services Direct Labour Organisation.
Any amendment to costs, as a result of the potential requirement for additional work in Ruette Haguais, will be brought back for the consideration of the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Recommendation
On the basis of the above and the attached, and having regard to all material considerations, it is recommended;
1. that the scheme progresses to implementation, but that the form of the scheme is amended as follows;
o the removal of one of the proposed ‘Jersey’ crossings (between the space occupied by the ‘Crapaud’ column and the CICS building);
o the surface treatment prior to the remaining first ‘Jersey’ crossing is black asphalt rather than a coloured aggregate, as originally proposed, as shown at Appendix 4.
2. that there are considered to be overriding reasons to maintain the use of road space in Broad Street as exists, but that further work be undertaken to explore the viability of providing more space for pedestrian flow and potential al fresco use in Ruette Haguais, with a view to this being incorporated into the scheme, subject to consultation, cost and the availability of resources;
3. that, the feedback to consultees as set out at appendix 5, is noted and endorsed.
It is further recommended;
4. that the timetable for implementation, as set out in the report, is noted;
5. that approval is granted to expend monies to the value of £76,600 from the Urban Renewal vote to award the main contract to T&TS DLO and to proceed to implement the scheme;
6. any further amendment of the scheme requiring the approval of additional expenditure will be brought back for the consideration of the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason(s) for Decision
The response to consultation on the draft scheme has been given due consideration relative to the objectives of the scheme and amendments made in light of their consideration.
Action Required
1. Undertake further liaison with Transport and Technical Services and the Parish of St Helier to explore the viability of additional amendment to the scheme involving potential works in Ruette Haguais;
2. Feed back the outcome of consultation, and the amendment of the scheme, to stakeholders and consultees;
3. Proceed to implementation on the basis of the timetable set out in the report.
Written by: | Kevin Pilley Assistant Director: Planning and Building Services |
| |
Approved by: | Peter Thorne Director: Planning and Building Services |
| |
Endorsed by: | Dave St George Manager: Transport Policy |
Attachments:
Appendix 1: plan of consultation scheme
Appendix 2: response to consultation
Appendix 3: correspondence from the Parish of St Helier
Appendix 4: Minister for Transport and Technical Services amendment
Appendix 5: proposal for al fresco from Bellini’s and the Blue Note Bar
Appendix 6: summary of consultation response and assessment
1/01/13/20/1 28 June 2006
gov.je