Agenda item

MAJOR SCHEME UPDATE

Minutes:

The introduction to the Major Scheme update was provided by Mr Kevin Munnelly, and Stephen Oliver subsequently gave more detail around the plan drawings.

 

It was noted that a revised bid for funding had been re-submitted to TfL, and that the total value of the programme was now £4.4m. A report was going to the Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee on 20th September for scrutiny. This was to be followed by the report being presented to the Executive on 18th October for final decision. The full title of the report was ‘Beckenham Public Realm Improvements, Design and Budget Sign off’. Any notes or comments from the PDS Committee would be notified to the Executive. The Executive had been recommended to approve the design and the final funding arrangements. It was also recommended that FM Conway be commissioned to carry out the work.

 

It was hoped that orders for materials could be placed during September 2016, and that capital works could commence in January 2017. The work should take no longer than 15 months. The Chairman asked why the matter had not been referred to an earlier agenda. Mr Munnelly was hopeful that preliminary work could commence in December 2016. Preliminary works would consist of things like electrical cabling.

 

Nick Goy asked if a compensation scheme was in place to assist traders that may suffer financially as a result of the improvement works; he feared that some traders could go out of business. Mr Munnelly stated that LBB and FM Conway would seek to manage the situation so that disruption was minimised. He acknowledged the importance of proper communications, and in successfully managing relationships with businesses and traders. He felt that lessons had been learnt from the past, and it was a bonus that on this occasion no water pipes would require replacing.  No compensation scheme was in place as the project was for the ‘betterment’ of the area. It was the case that businesses could apply to the Valuation Office for a business rate reduction. It was clarified that the Valuation Office was part of the Inland Revenue, and not part of the Council.

 

Tina Slater clarified that there was an allowance in the budget for a Project Liaison role. It was anticipated that this would be the same person that had undertaken the role previously on the Bromley North project. Marsha Berg asked if signs could be provided indicating that business was being carried on as usual. FM Conway confirmed that targeted signage would be utilised where appropriate. Ms Berg also requested that works machinery be deployed in such a manner that access to business premises would not be blocked. The Chairman asked where FM Conway’s depot would be located. The location that had provisionally been identified was St George’s Road Car Park.

 

Chloe Jane Ross enquired what the project strategy would be. Would there be complete road closures so that the project could complete sooner, or would it be a longer project with partial road closures?  FM Conway stated that the strategy could vary, and Mr Munnelly added that consideration would have to be given to linking in work being undertaken by TfL.

 

Mr Vishit Patel asked if there was going to be a site supervisor for Design. Mr Munnelly clarified that East would provide a design interface with FM Conway, which was especially important when working around listed buildings. Gary Warner added that there would be an LBB Clerk of Works. Mr Oliver explained to the Group that safety audits had been undertaken and the data fed into the latest drawings. Many new trees were planned, and that pavements had been widened at junctions. 

 

Mr Oliver referred to the Albemarle Road/Rectory Road plan drawing. It was noted that there were not many changes to this apart from the new trees planned for Beckenham Green. At the junction of Albemarle Road, Rectory Road, High Street and Southend Road, the turning circle for vehicles had been widened.

 

Mr Goy commented about pedestrian islands, and expressed the view that new square edged pedestrian islands were a ‘fad’ and more likely to cause vehicle damage. The Chairman asked for confirmation of the height of the pedestrian refuge which was confirmed as 150mls (6inches). Mr Gary Warner stated that the corners of the pedestrian islands were not square and that they would not cause more damage to vehicles. Mr Munnelly felt that the new pedestrian islands added a bit more design quality in keeping with the overall design. Mr Angus Culverwell stated that the new pedestrian islands looked nicer for a newly developed town centre, and that there were no adverse safety implications.

 

Marsha Berg referenced the bell bollard, and asked about colours. It was noted that the bell bollard could be black or green, with possibly a yellow stripe. Mr Robert Straker felt that as more traffic lights were being deployed, there was no longer a requirement for bell bollards. Janice Pilgrim commented that the bell bollards at a number of junctions would need to be in a colour that contrasts highly with the surrounding pavement so that sight impaired people could distinguish them and avoid collision with them.”

 

Mr Goy drew attention to the new bench that was proposed for outside of Beckenham Junction Station, and expressed the view that it may be obstructive. Mr Munnelly replied that the purpose of the bench was to encourage pedestrians to use the main crossing points.

 

The Group then looked at the plan drawings for St George’s Church junction. The Group heard that traffic modelling had been undertaken with respect to the proposed changes, and no significant impact had been found. Some members of the Group disputed this, especially in instances where they felt that traffic flow would be impacted by lorries and buses parking. Cllr Dunn asked how much was traffic coming down the High Street going to be reduced. Mr Munnelly stated that the amount of traffic reduction was not huge. As well as reducing traffic flows, the primary aim of the plans for this area was to create a safer and generally improved pedestrian environment.   

 

The Chairman enquired if HGV traffic flows could be directed using different road surface colours. The response from FM Conway to this was ‘No’ as the roads would just be black. Mr Goy was concerned that widening pavements would result in reduced road widths; he was also opposed to the idea of moving the traffic islands, and that in future it would mean having to wait for both lanes to clear. Mr Wood responded that it would just be a case of waiting for the ‘Green Man’.  Cllr Wells asked if trees could be planted outside Lloyds Bank.  Mr Oliver responded that the safety audit suggested that this was not a good location as sight lines to the traffic signals would be hindered; tree locations were still being investigated.

 

Mr Wood referenced Church Avenue, and the proposal to open it to two way traffic. He suggested that this could be a permanent change as it was already being used for illegal two way driving. Cllr Wells and Mr Culverwell were opposed to this, and were concerned that if this was allowed, Church Avenue would become a ‘rat run’. 

 

The Group turned their attention to the plan drawings for Thornton’s Corner. It was suggested that the existing two trees by Londis could be taken out to plant a row of new elm trees, but the Group made no decision on this. Traffic modelling had shown that the proposed developments for this area had shown no significant adverse impacts on traffic flow.

 

The Group referenced the old toilet block at the southern end of Thornton’s Corner by the gardens. Some members were hopeful that the toilet block could be re-opened, but it was noted that this was not something that was part of the Major Scheme. Mr Oliver had written to the Beckenham Society concerning this. The proposed pavement widenings had been traffic modelled, and were found to have no adverse effect on traffic flows. The Group heard that at the junction with High Street and Kelsey Park Road it was proposed to plant two new birch trees.

 

The Group looked at the plan drawings for ‘High Street’ and ‘Fairfield Road’. It was noted that three new trees were planned, as was a new zebra crossing to replace the traffic island that had been removed. Mr David Wood expressed a dislike for zebra crossings in a Conservation Area. He cited the example of Kensington where a ‘shared space’ was in operation, without zebra crossings. It was noted that the bus stop would be installed on a raised pavement, and that a bus shelter would also be erected. The Chairman asked if a request to TfL for a ‘countdown unit’ could be made. The view was expressed that TfL were not installing any more new countdown units, so this would need to be investigated.

 

Mr Goy expressed the view that on the plan drawing, it looked like the queue for the bus stop would face the wrong way; he also expressed opposition to shared use parking. Gary Warner stated that to distinguish parking and loading bays, changes in textures and colours would be used. Cllr Wells stated that he could not see a loading bay on the drawing, and that loading bays had to be deeper and wider than standard parking bays. He was concerned that businesses should benefit from the correct number of loading bays, and this was something he requested be looked into. 

 

Members turned their attention to the plan drawing for Kelsey Square. It was explained that the existing traffic island near the junction of High Street and Village Way would be removed and replace with a zebra crossing. The existing crossing outside of HSBC would be retained. It had been decided that kerbing going into the mews was not required. The Bowie lightning bolt outside of Zizzi’s was still planned; illuminated from above. The radial at the junction of High Street and Village Way remained unchanged. The Group noted the new trees that were planned.

 

The Group studied the plan drawing for the area of the High Street adjoining The Drive and Sainsbury’s. It was noted that a new zebra crossing was planned for the High Street, adjacent to Sainsbury’s forecourt. The Group were informed that new trees were to be planted at the junction of Village Way and High Street. It was noted that a ‘table’ crossing was to be installed at the junction of High Street and Burrell Row. The catenary lighting originally planned for Sainsbury’s forecourt would not be retained as part of the Scheme due to maintenance costs. 

 

Mr Culverwell commented that zebra crossings in general could contribute to traffic delays, and it was difficult to model for pedestrian flows. It was asked if belisha beacons were required at crossings, and the answer to this was yes. Mr Culverwell asked when it had been decided to add additional crossings, and the Chairman responded that they had been required by the safety audit. It was noted that zebra crossings were utilised instead of light controlled crossings to save on costs. A difference of opinion was expressed concerning the use of zebra crossings.

 

Members of the Group expressed concern about buses and possible traffic delays occurring either when buses had broken down, or when trying to pass each other with limited space. Mr Munnelly stated that the design parameters should allow for buses to pass each other. Carriageway width would be wider in the High Street than at Bromley North.

 

Marie Pender asked that the paving for Regal Alley go back all the way into the car park, and for a drain repair to be undertaken. She also asked if consideration could be applied to erecting a temporary bollard to prohibit entry into the alley while the works were being undertaken. It had previously been agreed that the drop kerb would be removed in the High Street adjacent to this alley entrance. Vehicles illegally using the alley would be monitored and a bollard will be installed if necessary.

 

The final plan drawing to be considered was the one for the War Memorial Roundabout. The proposed drawing had been remodelled--improvements were not significant. Outside the Odeon, the traffic island would be moved to prohibit right turns out of the cinema. The Odeon car park would be resurfaced, and a new bench in the shape of a large ‘O’ would be installed. The changes would benefit Odeon, and their response had been positive. Cllr Wells was glad to see that no guard rails were on the plans.

 

It was noted that the pedestrian islands on the zebra crossings would be widened, and that entry onto the roundabout from the junctions would still be a double vehicle width.

 

Opinion was divided concerning the possible removal of the wall around the war memorial, although there were more in favour of removing the wall rather than keeping it. It was not clear what the replacement would be if the wall was removed; a rethink was required concerning this. It was noted that a new tree was going to be planted on the centre of the roundabout. This could possibly be an oak tree; Chloe Jane-Ross expressed a preference for a sweet chestnut tree. 

 

Mr Goy asked if the loading bays outside of Dean’s Garage would be retained. Mr Oliver responded that this was the case, but that it was not part of the Scheme anyway.

 

RESOLVED  that:

 

(1)  FM Conway erect targeted signage as appropriate

 

(2) Enquiries be made to TfL to see if a ‘countdown unit’ could be installed with the new bus shelter

 

(3) Checks be made to ensure that an adequate number of loading bays be incorporated into the Scheme

 

(4) Consideration be made concerning what would replace the wall on the War Memorial roundabout if it was removed