. In the absence of any definitive policy relating to the provision of parking for people with disabilities decisions will remain essentially ad hoc. In accord with States strategic objectives relating to the requirement to provide for the needs of an ageing population, however, it is considered appropriate to ensure that the current level of parking provision within the town centre is maintained for people with disabilities to ensure that they are best able to maintain their independence and reach the facilities that they need. Furthermore, additional on-street parking has been provided around the town centre (70 spaces in 2005) and there is also availability of space within the town’s multi-storey car parks at all times (particularly Sand Street and Pier Road) which remain more easily accessible to able-bodied drivers and passengers. On the basis of the above, it is considered that consideration be given to amend the scheme and to secure the provision of parking for the disabled that is in closer proximity to the banks in Library Place and to Liberation Square than those spaces currently proposed (in Hope Street and Dumaresq Street). The provision of two additional disabled spaces in Broad Street, involving the loss of two 20 minute on-street spaces, would provide good access to banks for people with disabilities. And the replacement of two one hour on-street spaces in Esplanade with disabled parking would provide good access to Liberation Square and other facilities in this area. This would respond directly to the feedback raised during consultation. Loss of on-street parking spaces Concern was expressed at the loss of on-street short-stay parking provision – the scheme, as proposed would result in the loss of about six 1 hour spaces in Conway Street, and two each in Hope Street and Dumaresq Street – on the grounds of yet more incremental loss of town centre parking from the perspective of shoppers or people wishing to ‘nip in’ to town. There was also concern from at least two businesses in the locality (located in Library Place and Conway Street respectively) who appeared to rely on the availability of short-stay parking to service their business (an estate agents and beauty salon) to some extent. The States has determined that greater priority should be given to pedestrians in the heart of the town centre. This will inevitably involve the reallocation of limited road space and there will be adverse implications for vehicular town centre access relative to that presently enjoyed, principally in terms of the availability of central on-street parking provision. And if the principle of ensuring that those least able to access town centre facilities (i.e. the disabled) are given priority for town centre parking is upheld, it follows that any loss of town centre on-street space will adversely affect public short-stay spaces. The ability to ‘nip-in’ i.e. drive and park, to the heart of the town centre will thus be reduced. It is relevant to note, however, that the loss of on-street public parking spaces as a result of this scheme amounts to approximately 10 spaces (six from Conway Street and two each from Broad Street and the Esplanade, if the revised scheme is adopted) but that there remains availability in town centre multi-storey car parks (particularly Sand Street and Pier Road) and that the level of on-street edge of town centre parking was increased by 70 spaces in 2005. The concern of business being able to service its town centre premises from short-stay on-street parking spaces is considered potentially misplaced and misleading: business premises should be serviced and serviceable from the town’s delivery bays and business is able to use these for the purpose of servicing their premises by displaying the name of the business, delivery address and time of use in vehicles using them for genuine servicing operations (as opposed to informal staff parking). Service bays exist in Broad Street and Library Place and provision is being made for deliveries as part of the Conway Street scheme. It is recognised that these town centre service bays are heavily used and require regular policing. To ensure a greater availability of service bays, it is proposed that the delivery bay to be provided in Conway Street be available for use throughout the day rather than its use being limited to part of the day, as originally proposed. Introduction of feature lighting At least two correspondents have expressed concern and distaste for the proposed introduction of ‘lightstacks’ in Conway Street on the basis that they are considered to be ‘out of character’ with both the street and the Island. The question as to whether they are a ‘necessary expense’ has also been raised. The purpose of this feature lighting is to highlight Conway Street’s function as a ‘gateway’ and an important linkage between the town and the waterfront. It is relevant to note that the design of this lighting is consistent with that employed elsewhere in the St Helier Street Life Programme i.e. it is of a simple discrete design that is capable of introduction in settings where there is a mixture of architectural building styles and ages and thus requires little/low maintenance. There are a number of potential amendments to this element of the scheme that could be considered, some of which are illustrated at appendix 4: Removal from the scheme: the only function of this element is to highlight Conway Street’s role as a gateway (not to provide illumination). It could be excluded from the scheme altogether without undermining the primary role of the scheme, which is to enhance pedestrian safety and to revive this part of the town. This option would also secure a cost reduction of approximately £25,000. Amend the design of the lighting feature: the design of the feature lighting could be adapted to incorporate more ‘local relevance’. A range of interventions is possible ranging from some form of treatment of the existing light columns to a completely bespoke design. This is likely to have additional cost implications. The introduction of ‘themed’ street furniture that seeks to reflect a particular architectural style or fashion i.e. Victoriana, is considered to be wholly inappropriate in that it is entirely faux with no particular local relevance and would not reflect the mixed architectural styles and ages of buildings of Conway Street and/or the town. Changing the feature: denoting Conway Street’s gateway function could be undertaken equally well by a feature that is completely different to ‘feature’ lighting. There is a range of options including the use of banners (which could introduce movement and colour and also be lit) to specifically commissioned elements of public art. The purpose of highlighting Conway Street’s role as a key link between the town centre and the Waterfront is an important one and for this reason it is considered that some element should be introduced in the street to highlight this function. More work needs to be undertaken to address issues of form and design of any such feature: this will not delay implementation of the scheme. Cycle parking Concern has been expressed that the relocation of cycle parking from Conway Street to Wharf Street may compromise the ability to service the Pomme D’Or Hotel in terms of its conference business and also that the street is unlit and that parked bikes here may be more vulnerable as a result. This matter requires further consideration. It is an incidental element of the scheme and is considered capable of resolution pending further investigation of access and lighting issues: this will not delay implementation of the scheme. Traffic management The proposed changes to priority for vehicles at the Esplanade junction have been queried and a suggestion made that this should become a filter-in-turn junction. Also there has been a suggestion that consideration should be given to reversing the flow of traffic along Commercial Street to reduce the flow of vehicles in Conway Street and also in Broad Street. Both of these matters are considered worthy of further review but require more work. They do not, however, require any significantly material alteration to the scheme and can be addressed subsequently pending further investigation. They also need not delay implementation of the scheme Timescale It was originally envisaged that this scheme would be implemented before the summer: the requirement to amend the draft scheme to identify viable locations for displaced parking for people with disabilities has resulted in delay. The implications of this delay is such that the scheme cannot now be implemented in full before the Transport and Technical Services summer embargo on roadworks in the town centre. It is, however, possible to begin implementation of the scheme and to provide the benefit of wider pavements for part of the street before the summer. A revised timetable for implementation is set out below. Milestone | Timescale | Further work undertaken to address issues relating to gateway features, cycle parking and junction priority | March - September | T&TS Minister considers highway related matters | 31 March 2005 | Feedback to consultees about amended scheme (2 weeks) | 03 April – 14 April | Start on site (for 6 wks) Western side complete | 17 April – 26 May | Summer embargo | June - September | Recommence works and complete scheme (8 wks) | 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. This is set out below. Item | Cost | Main contract (labour, plant, materials) | 144,000 | Table top construction | 21,000 | Lighting (wall mounted) | 10,000 | Gateway features (procurement and installation) | 25,000 | Site management | 12,000 | Publicity (advertising) | 2,000 | Total | 214,000 |
The proposed amendments to the scheme will not materially alter, (subject to the outcome pf deliberations relating to ‘gateway’ features) its cost. Costs associated with proposals that are incidental to the scheme and the responsibility of others, such as the potential reversal of traffic flow in Commercial Street and the potential requirement for lighting in Wharf Street, would be borne by the appropriate agency i.e. T&TS and PoSH. 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. Conclusions and 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; 2. that, subject to the approval of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, displaced parking for people with disabilities is provided in Broad Street (two spaces) and Esplanade (two spaces) and that accordingly existing on-street parking in Hope Street and Dumaresq Street remains unaffected; 3. that, subject to the approval of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services, the proposed delivery bay in Conway Street is available throughout the day; 4. that further consideration be given to the gateway feature to be installed in Conway Street and that further work and consultation is undertaken to determine this within the existing budgetary parameters established for feature lighting; 5. that the location of displaced cycle parking remains to be the subject of further consideration and subject to consultation with relevant stakeholders; 6. that traffic management issues relating to the priority for vehicles at the junction of Conway Street and Esplanade, and the potential reversal of traffic flow in Commercial Street remain to be considered in further detail and will be determined by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services; It is further recommended; 7. that the timetable for implementation, as set out in the report, is noted; 8. that approval is granted to expend monies to the value of £214,000 from the Urban Renewal vote to award the main contract to T&TS DLO and, subject to the resolution of issues outlined above, proceed to implement the scheme. Reason(s) for Decision The response to consultation on the draft scheme has been generally positive and the proposed amendments to the scheme, if resolved and adopted, address those concerns of significance thus enabling progression of the scheme to implementation. Action Required 1. Undertake further liaison with Transport and Technical Services and the Parish of St Helier to determine and secure the approval of the Minister and the Connetable, as appropriate, in relation to those items outlined at 2, 3, 5 and 6 above; 2. Subject to the resolution of issues at 1 above, feed back the outcome of consultation, and the amendment of the scheme, to stakeholders and consultees; 3. Subject to the resolution of issues at 1 above, 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: summary of consultation response and assessment Appendix 4: potential gateway feature options 1/01/13/20/9 17 March 2005 | 
gov.je