Minutes:
The Major Scheme update was provided by Kevin Munnelly and Stephen Oliver.
The Group heard that the business plan had been submitted, and that a response from TfL was awaited. Agreement was required concerning the percentage of contingency. LBB were hoping to agree a figure of 25%, TfL were favouring 15%. Originally, the contingency was 40%. Mr Munnelly pointed out that given the high total value of the scheme, the difference in the percentage values equated to a significant amount of money. It was hoped that the matter would soon be agreed. The materials could then be ordered; it was hoped that implementation could proceed in September 2016. A detailed implementation plan would be sought from FM Conway once TfL had agreed funding. It was anticipated that everything would be signed off by the end of June. Mr Munnelly stated that the design was robust, lessons had been learnt from previous projects, and so it was hoped that there would not be many problems with the implementation of the major scheme project.
Dr Parker felt that engagement in the public consultation was limited, and that large numbers of the public were still not aware of what was going on. He wanted to see a greater dissemination of information to the general public. Mr Munnelly stated that general arrangement drawings would be displayed. Councillor Stephen Wells suggested that drawings be displayed in a three day exhibition at the Beckenham Public Halls.
The Group heard that when works were being undertaken on a project in Orpington, information had been placed in an empty shop. The process for doing this in Beckenham had not yet been decided. Lorraine McQuillan (Town Centre Manager) suggested that LBB use a shop on Beckenham High Street. The Chairman felt that perhaps a media release was also appropriate.
The Chairman read an update to the Group concerning the Albemarle Road/Southend Road Junction; this had been drafted by Mr Chris Cole:
Virgin Media had now agreed to move their cable with LBB providing Civils assistance. Once the cable had been moved, LBB would then immediately start on the rest of the junction works. This was likely to occur in July 2016. LBB were liaising with TfL’s Signals Team to ensure that all works were co-ordinated. In order to minimise disruption, LBB would prefer the start date to be in late July once the school holidays commenced, as traffic was significantly less in the morning peak.
Provided the decision had been made on materials, the junction could then be completed. If no decision had been made, the footway would be temporarily made good with tarmac, and the permanent materials would be installed as part of the major scheme.
Mr Oliver informed the Group that the construction drawings were now almost complete. However, they were not final. The Group looked at a planning drawing that focused on the Albemarle Road Junction. The drawing was in colour and so the Group were able to easily identify the varying types of paving and surfaces. The Group was in agreement that the Albemarle Road parking bays (where the road heads West), should be removed. It was noted that the Albemarle Road Junction design had been formulated after a traffic modelling exercise had been undertaken; indeed this was the case for all of the road junctions. The Group discussed the traffic bells/bollards and Marsha Berg commented that they were a trip hazard. Dr Parker wondered if the colour could be changed to make them more visible; he felt that if they were simply removed, it would be dangerous for pedestrians. Dr Parker requested that in future, road names be added to the plans to aid identification. Mr Oliver stated that the kerbs on the road junctions would be 6cm high. Crossing points would be wider and would slope down to be flush with the carriageway. There would be pink granite paving at the road junctions, and tactile paving would be red.
The Group looked at a drawing that showed the design for the new planters, with associated seating and paving. The brickwork for the planters was an earthy colour, and the words “Beckenham Green” were imbedded into the brickwork of the planters using green bricks. There were slats to sit on next to the planters, these had no backs. Mr Goy commented that he did not approve of the green brickwork which also broke up the name of the green around a corner so from other viewpoints it read either ‘ENHAM GREEN’ or just ‘BECK’. He would prefer to see the seating fitted with backs and arms. Mr Oliver clarified that other seating would be introduced that would have backs and arms. Mr Oliver brought along a new brick sample in an earthier brown colour in response to criticism of the colour of the bricks at the previous meeting.
The paving next to the planters was a very similar colour to the brickwork used for the planters, and Gail Low requested that this be changed to allow for a visual contrast. It was noted that although the seating by the planters was white in the drawing, white would not necessarily be used. The Chairman requested that the seating be wooden.
Marsha Berg asked if the electrical power supply for the market had been sorted. The answer to this was yes, and it was noted that the lighting in the trees ran off a separate lighting system. A new electrical plan had been formulated. A member of the group stated that the Christmas tree lights should run off a separate circuit. It was noted that the Bromley Market milestone was not moving.
The Chairman expressed disappointment that there was now no pedestrian crossing on the southern side of the Bromley Road-High Street junction drawing. Mr Oliver informed the Group that a crossing was not on the plan as the design team had deemed it not to be cost effective. He explained that the crossing would not meet disabled access requirements. This was because the required steps on one side would not be accessible to disabled people. If a long ramp was introduced, then this would require the removal of trees and substantial loss of landscaping. It was noted that there were no railings in the drawing as they had all been removed. Dr Parker questioned what the orange lines were in the drawing, and it was confirmed that these were yellow lines. The Working Group was unanimous in their request that all yellow lines in the conservation area be half width.
Mr Goy was concerned that no right turns had been built into the drawing, he felt that this was a problem. He expressed the view that pavement widening meant reducing the carriageway width and the number of lanes forming at some traffic light junctions from two to just one lane. Mr Munnelly responded that the traffic modelling that had been carried out had not revealed any significant traffic delays caused by the absence of right turns. Mr Old asked how people would park their cars in the bays by the bank, as there did not appear to be enough room. Mr Munnelly stated that a larger scale drawing would show that this was not the case. Mr Goy expressed concern over what at first appeared to be a lack of cycle racks; Mr Oliver clarified that cycle racks would be placed in various locations, as this was an important part of the business case.
The Group examined the drawing that was marked as “Thornton’s Corner”. The Group expressed concern regarding the pavement widening on the north east corner of Thornton’s Corner, and the impact on traffic flow. Mr Oliver outlined the improvement works planned around the bus stop waiting space, and would give the potential for restaurants to adopt alfresco dining. The Group noted the different types and colours of tactile paving. The Group expressed the view that Kelsey Park Road should remain with two lanes instead of one, having been resurfaced in the last few days.
Mr Goy expressed concern regarding the loss of traffic lanes, and potential holdups that could be caused by vehicles attempting to turn right. Currently there were two lanes, a straight-on-or-left-lane and the right-filter lane for cars turning from the High St into Kelsey Park Road. Mr Goy’s concern was that at present, right turning cars can be held up by oncoming traffic from Manor Road, but because there is another lane at present, cars can continue straight on or turn left. He stated that it would just take one right turning car, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, to cause a jam all down the High St - and buses and emergency vehicles would be caught in that jam. Similarly, he also expressed concern regarding the proposed pavement extension outside of the Odeon Cinema, and felt that this may also cause problems for emergency vehicles.
The Group referred to the drawing pertaining to the Fairfield Road Junction, and noted the free parking bays and the bus stops. The Group heard that to deal with long standing flood issues, the bus stop would be on a raised platform. The Group looked at the seating plan for the new bus stops and noted that the seats were devoid of arms. The Group expressed a preference for seats with arms. Mr Oliver reported that the bus waiting space would be greatly improved, and that the bus stop would be raised to accommodate disabled access requirements. He presented a drawing of the bus stop to explain the proposals.
Mr John Crozier raised the issue of streetlamps, and stated that the streetlamps being proposed as part of the major scheme were not in keeping with the buildings the area, and that the scheme should seek to retain heritage lighting where possible. However, the Group noted that the main road going through Beckenham was an “A” road, and as such, proper illumination was required. Cllr Wells requested that wherever possible, lighting should be attached to buildings. Mr Oliver explained to the Group that the heritage lamps as used on Beckenham Green would not on their own give sufficient illumination of the “A” road. Alternative lanterns might require an additional 27 columns, therefore the lanterns presented had been recommended as the best option.
Mr Munnelly reminded the Group that 6-7 lamp profiles had been previously debated by the Group at some length. Mr Oliver stated that lighting would be fixed to buildings where practicable. It was noted that it was not straightforward to put lamps on buildings. In many cases, there were various technical and practical issues that needed consideration such as buildings not being high enough, or too far away from the road. Mr Munnelly stated that existing lighting on buildings would be retained. It was felt that the matter of lighting should be further discussed at the next meeting.
RESOLVED:
(1) that the general plan drawings be displayed to the public in due course
(2) that a detailed implementation plan would be sought from FM Conway once TfL had agreed funding.
(3) that the Albemarle Road parking bays (where the road heads West), should be removed.
(4) that the Group would be updated concerning why there were no advanced stop cycle markings at all traffic lights on the plan drawings
(5) that Mr Oliver investigate if the colour of the bell bollards could be changed
(6) that all yellow lines in the conservation area be half width.
(7) that seats should be wooden, and wherever possible should have backs and arms
(8) that lighting be discussed further at the next meeting