Agenda item

Report ES10185

In relation to traffic schemes in the Borough Members considered a report on matters concerned with scheme selection, design and consultation procedures. In accordance with paragraph 3.33 of Report ES10185 examples of public consultation were also made available for Members.

Responding to comments from Councillor Adams on a need for data collection that was based on a common sense approach and related to accidents for which reduction measures could be developed, the Head of Traffic and Road Safety briefly summarised the approach to identifying problems for potential safety/accident reduction schemes. This included reference to a cost-benefit approach for difficult and costly remedies. The Traffic Engineering Manager indicated that accidents had to be treatable in an engineering sense to be considered for schemes.

Councillor Grainger welcomed the report as a forward looking document and supported the approach to carry out much of the design work for schemes in-house. Referring to a more pragmatic approach now in place for identifying accident and congestion problems as well as Member and resident identified priorities, Councillor Grainger referred to a list of requests being made available to inform priorities and for data on non accident injuries also being provided. Additionally Councillor Grainger referred to treatments correlating to accident records. He also advocated a development in the use of white H bars.

In order to ensure that Member priority schemes remained prominent Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher suggested that when reviewing LIP funded schemes for priority it was important to have sight of the Member list of priorities at the same time and by ward.

The Head of Traffic and Road Safety welcomed more Member input early on. It was hard to achieve with the time lines but greater flexibility in spending TfL funding (to identify schemes that were a priority for Bromley) meant that it was possible to accommodate Member priorities more. He suggested that an extra step in the process was necessary and Councillor Huntington-Thresher felt that this could comprise a better description (of priorities) at the start and the provision of more detail. 

On consultation responses for parking schemes and in the context of what the responses related to, Councillor Huntington-Thresher advocated the reporting of both response percentages and actual numbers. Noting that some consultations referred to the disclosure of the name and address of those responding, Councillor Huntington-Thresher suggested that this provided a disincentive to respond and where residents had no view on a scheme the Councillor felt that residents should be asked to respond with this information.  Councillor Huntington-Thresher also felt that some consultation documents for large schemes could be daunting and suggested that such letters might be made more succinct.

Councillor Adams enquired whether it was possible for residents to be able to respond electronically and Councillor Fawthrop highlighted an electoral registration communication as a possible example for such an approach and using a code to indicate a response. Also, a yes/no tick box could sometimes be used to secure a response but comments in a comments box provided more helpful information.

In cases where there was a 50/50 split from residents in a road Councillor Fawthrop felt that it was better to seek further clarification from residents rather than implement a scheme in full – in such circumstances he felt that it was better to leave the status quo rather than proceed with a scheme. 

The Chairman suggested that it would be for Members to indicate the proportion of favourable responses necessary to proceed with a scheme where it was finely balanced. Councillor Grainger suggested that room for comment be made on each element of question. Councillor Fawthrop suggested that for a long road it was necessary to split the road into sections.

Responding to points made, the Head of Traffic and Road Safety felt that it was necessary to look at more use of email and internet for consultation responses. Yes/no tick box responses provided a quantitative outcome to consultation but comments were also helpful; these could be amalgamated. The Head of Traffic and Road Safety also suggested that rather than have a specific proportion of favourable responses necessary to proceed with a scheme e.g. 60/40 it would be preferable to include all responses and present them to the Committee. The Chairman indicated that he would work with the Head of Traffic and Road Safety to produce a summary paper for circulation to Committee Members.

Concerning vehicles displaced by parking schemes Councillor Grainger indicated that it was not possible to be sure where displaced vehicles might go but it would be helpful to have an estimate of the number of vehicles that would be displaced. The Chairman felt that this should be part of the customer impact section of reports.

RESOLVED that the selection, design and consultation methods, set out in this report be noted and the Chairman works with the Head of Traffic and Road Safety to produce a summary paper on consultation matters for circulation to Committee Members.