Bye-bye pedestrianisation - for a while, at least
Monday, 16th July 2012.
Hopes of pedestrianising Haverhill High Street receded into the distance again on Thursday when councillors agreed to a new scheme which would turn it into a 20mph zone.
Proposals to close the street to all traffic put forward earlier this year ran into so many objections that Suffolk County Council highways engineers came forward with the new idea at Haverhill Area Working Party's meeeting.
Haverhill Town Council had tried to show that residents wanted pedestrianisation by conducting a survey in the street which produced a majority of 70 per cent in favour.
But the working party refused to receive the results of the survey. Chairman Cllr Karen Richardson told town clerk Will Austin the data should be passed on to the county council instead.
Working party members were loth to turn their back on pedestrianisation altogether, though, and changed the wording of the proposals to add that it should 'remain on the working party agenda'.
But the new proposals effectively supersede the idea of a traffic ban, which could only come back into discussions if circimstances change dramatically.
The county council's Luke Barber, presenting the plans, said the number of objections to the traffic ban order was massively larger than most such orders, where there might be one objection, or in an extreme case, two. In this case there were 15.
This meant it was extremely unlikely it could be taken forward, and even then it would almost certainly fail at a public inquiry.
Mr Austin asked whether there was now a 'vision' for Haverhill town centre at all, and what he should answer to residents who wanted to know why their wishes were being ignored.
"These proposals have been drawn up by people who clearly don't know how the town works," he said. Blitzes on illegal parking had proved completely ineffective, he said.
He also protested the relocation in the new plans of the public art - a large broadcasting head sculpture - to the market square, which is to be enhanced.
A town councillor, Roger Andre, had written a letter in support of the survey, but Mr Austin was not allowed to read any of it out which referred to the survey itself, on the same grounds that it should be addressed to the county council instead.
Mr Austin said the two organisations - the county council which is designing the scheme, and St Edmundsbury Borough Council, whose working party is commissioning it - seemed to be pointing the finger at each other.
Mr Barber admitted it was 'a complex relationship' but said safety was p[aramount in the design. "You don't have to exclude motor vehicles from a space to make it safe," he said.
He thought police should be able to enforce the waiting restrictions and could be made to 'via safer neighbourhood team public meetings'.
He also thought some illegal parking was caused by confusion about the regulations and, although the market square was not currently a focal point, he hoped it would be made into one by the enhancements.
Cllr Maureen Byrne said the pedestrianisation issue was one of the most important decisions for Haverhill, and a majority of people wanted it back on the agenda.
Cllr Richardson said people had had their opportunity to have their voice, and the figures in the response did not stack up.
Cllr Paul McManus, who said he had seen three accidents in the street in the past year when a child was knocked down, demanded a 'visible deterrent' to illegal parking.
Cllr Adam Whittaker said his preference was for pedestrianisation, but they had to listen to the results of the earlier consultation. He wondered if technology on vehicle recognition or average speed could be implemented.
Cllr Anne Gower said: "There is a sense that money is being spent on a cosmetic enhancement. We mustn't be seen to be profligate with council tax payers money."
Mr Barber said Suffolk police had raised no objections to the speed limit. It would be an enforceable one, but probably wouldn't need enforcing, because by the time they had finished the engineering works no one would be able to drive at more than about ten or 12mph in the zone.
Cllr Derek Redhead said a 20mph zone in Exning Road, Newmarket, had proved a disaster and unenforceable. He said pedestrianisation had always been an aim of the working party and was concerned they now seemed to be going away from it.
Mr Barber said the scheme being proposed was 'a form of pedestrianisation', in that only vans and delivery lorries would be allowed in between 10am and 4pm.
Members agreed to the scheme, and to an addition suggested by Cllr Gordon Cox that providing a flagpole as part of the market square enhancement should be investigated.
Proposals to close the street to all traffic put forward earlier this year ran into so many objections that Suffolk County Council highways engineers came forward with the new idea at Haverhill Area Working Party's meeeting.
Haverhill Town Council had tried to show that residents wanted pedestrianisation by conducting a survey in the street which produced a majority of 70 per cent in favour.
But the working party refused to receive the results of the survey. Chairman Cllr Karen Richardson told town clerk Will Austin the data should be passed on to the county council instead.
Working party members were loth to turn their back on pedestrianisation altogether, though, and changed the wording of the proposals to add that it should 'remain on the working party agenda'.
But the new proposals effectively supersede the idea of a traffic ban, which could only come back into discussions if circimstances change dramatically.
The county council's Luke Barber, presenting the plans, said the number of objections to the traffic ban order was massively larger than most such orders, where there might be one objection, or in an extreme case, two. In this case there were 15.
This meant it was extremely unlikely it could be taken forward, and even then it would almost certainly fail at a public inquiry.
Mr Austin asked whether there was now a 'vision' for Haverhill town centre at all, and what he should answer to residents who wanted to know why their wishes were being ignored.
"These proposals have been drawn up by people who clearly don't know how the town works," he said. Blitzes on illegal parking had proved completely ineffective, he said.
He also protested the relocation in the new plans of the public art - a large broadcasting head sculpture - to the market square, which is to be enhanced.
A town councillor, Roger Andre, had written a letter in support of the survey, but Mr Austin was not allowed to read any of it out which referred to the survey itself, on the same grounds that it should be addressed to the county council instead.
Mr Austin said the two organisations - the county council which is designing the scheme, and St Edmundsbury Borough Council, whose working party is commissioning it - seemed to be pointing the finger at each other.
Mr Barber admitted it was 'a complex relationship' but said safety was p[aramount in the design. "You don't have to exclude motor vehicles from a space to make it safe," he said.
He thought police should be able to enforce the waiting restrictions and could be made to 'via safer neighbourhood team public meetings'.
He also thought some illegal parking was caused by confusion about the regulations and, although the market square was not currently a focal point, he hoped it would be made into one by the enhancements.
Cllr Maureen Byrne said the pedestrianisation issue was one of the most important decisions for Haverhill, and a majority of people wanted it back on the agenda.
Cllr Richardson said people had had their opportunity to have their voice, and the figures in the response did not stack up.
Cllr Paul McManus, who said he had seen three accidents in the street in the past year when a child was knocked down, demanded a 'visible deterrent' to illegal parking.
Cllr Adam Whittaker said his preference was for pedestrianisation, but they had to listen to the results of the earlier consultation. He wondered if technology on vehicle recognition or average speed could be implemented.
Cllr Anne Gower said: "There is a sense that money is being spent on a cosmetic enhancement. We mustn't be seen to be profligate with council tax payers money."
Mr Barber said Suffolk police had raised no objections to the speed limit. It would be an enforceable one, but probably wouldn't need enforcing, because by the time they had finished the engineering works no one would be able to drive at more than about ten or 12mph in the zone.
Cllr Derek Redhead said a 20mph zone in Exning Road, Newmarket, had proved a disaster and unenforceable. He said pedestrianisation had always been an aim of the working party and was concerned they now seemed to be going away from it.
Mr Barber said the scheme being proposed was 'a form of pedestrianisation', in that only vans and delivery lorries would be allowed in between 10am and 4pm.
Members agreed to the scheme, and to an addition suggested by Cllr Gordon Cox that providing a flagpole as part of the market square enhancement should be investigated.
Comment on this story
[board listing] [login] [register]
You must be logged in to post messages. (login now)