TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
St Helier Street Life Programme: Conway Street
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION: HIGHWAY RELATED ISSUES
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is for the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to consider the proposed highway-related amendments to a scheme to deliver pedestrian improvements to Conway Street following consideration of the outcome of public consultation by the Minister for Planning and Environment.
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 pedestrian improvements in Conway Street was approved as a draft for public consultation by the Environment and Public Services Committee on 17 November 2005, and a preliminary budget allocation of £203,600 was approved from the Urban Renewal budget.
In approving the scheme, the Committee, in consultation with the Connetable of St Helier, sought to displace all on-street disabled parking provision in Conway Street, but stipulated that this should be relocated elsewhere to serve the town centre, and not lost. The Connetable undertook to explore the possibility of providing this within the grounds of the Town Church through discussion with the new Dean.
The proposal to relocate displaced disabled parking provision from Conway Street to the Town Church through the offices of the Connetable has, thus far, come to nought. Alternative spaces were identified in Hope Street (two spaces) and Dumaresq Street (two spaces) and it was on this basis that a scheme for consultation was approved by the Urban Task Group on 23 January 2006 and released for public comment. The consultation scheme is attached at appendix 1.
Discussion
The consultation response , and the Minister for Planning and Environment’s draft decision summary in light of this, are outlined at appendices 2 and 3 respectively. A summary of the consultation response and assessment, which has been carried out as a joint exercise between the P&E and T&TS Departments, is set out at appendix 4.
Arising from this, there are a number of highway-related matters which require consideration, as set out below:
Location of displaced disabled parking
There has emerged, from a number of correspondents, concern that the disabled parking spaces in Conway Street provided good access for people with disabilities to the concentration of banks and the Post Office in Library Place and Broad Street respectively. Whilst there are existing spaces for disabled people in Broad Street and Church Street which would remain unaffected by this scheme, there are only a limited number of them and the loss of space in Conway Street and its replacement in Hope Street and Dumaresq Street would, it has been suggested, seriously undermine disabled people’s access to these services. The comment has also been made that the displacement of spaces for the disabled from Conway Street prejudices access to the southern end of Conway Street for people with disabilities.
The converse view has also been put forward, such that there is sufficient disabled parking provision within the town centre and that on-street parking that is essential to the needs of commerce in the town should not be sacrificed to maintain the existing level or to increase parking for disabled parking. This view was, however, in the minority.
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.
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
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 from a highways perspective as follows;
2. that 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 the proposed delivery bay in Conway Street is available throughout the day;
4. 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;
Subject to the approval of the above, the scheme can proceed to implementation on the basis of the following timetable.
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 | May - 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 |
It is further recommended;
5. that the timetable for implementation, as set out above, is noted and endorsed;
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. Feed back the outcome of consultation, and the amendment of the scheme, to stakeholders and consultees;
2. 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: Decision Summary of the Minister for Planning and Environment’s decision in relation to consultation;
Appendix 4: summary of consultation response and assessment
1/01/13/20/9
20 March 2005
gov.je